Me hoping he keeps talking. It’s entertaining and likely to lead to Ross Perot syndrome. The more people hear from him, the less they will want to buy the product. But that is not always reliable in Kentucky. It’s our state that is kooky in embracing this fellow. Why couldn’t he be “from” somewhere else?

Janet

http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist12.php

It would seem natural that the rich would feel threatened by the rise of mass universal suffrage and especially when in turn it gave birth to the idea that economic suffrage too was a legitimate cause. This latter sense of threat accelerated massively with the apparent success of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Little wonder there was a push by the rich to implement Fascism wherever possible. The failure of either Fascism or Communism to make headway in Britain despite the General Strike in 1926 was probably more due to the inherited collective wisdom of the majority of British people that the fight for parliamentary democracy had been long and hard against monarchs, religious despots and the rich and they weren’t going to easily surrender its potential fruits.

In America today the right use three key arguments, firstly the Agency Theory that politicians will always run government in their own interests and especially spending deficits because they use popular spending programs to get themselves elected, secondly the Agency Theory that government bureaucrats will always pursue their own interests because they are not exposed to market forces and finally that only market forces can magically achieve General Equilibrium where demand is matched by supply. I will not engage in the counter reasoning to these three key arguments since this is not the point of my post but rather to point out that all three of them are core beliefs of Libertarianism. Co-opting these Libertarian beliefs by right-wingers serves the purpose of hypocritically under-mining universal suffrage which at the moment only finds the expression of its power through government action. The necessity of balancing political suffrage with economic suffrage is not yet a main stream belief. With elite capitalism revealing its true colors with the Financial Crash it is only natural the rich should try to divert attention from capitalism’s failings by attacking democracy. The manufactured populism of the Tea-Baggers movement, for example, has all the finger print marks of Libertarian sponsorship and infiltration by the extreme right:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Astroturfing_allegations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch

http://www.texastakeover.com/world-news/9240-opinion-neo-cons-neo-nazis-neo-mcveighs-crash-ron-paul-s-tea-party.html

The constitution allowed for amendments – and this I would suggest is a sensible and practical notion. The framers could not have anticipated all the many developments and dilemnas that a people could face two hundred years later. Hence the need to recognize that the Constitution occasionally requires amendments – the amendments prohibiting slavery as an example. Would strict constituionalism require that we maintain slavery? If so than we have no need of such purity.

The great majority would rather be told what to do and think and folks that don’t buy the pedestrian myths ruffle too many feathers, thus firmly placing a governor on the flathead six of the libertarian movement.

Something tells me that if the Libertarians were to actually achieve a majority in Washington, it would last about 3 days before we would see behavior that would make the South Korean Pugilistic Legislature look like a bunch of nancy boys.

I don’t see a single major political figure in this country acknowledging the fact that a primary reason why the economy is in such bad shape is because the economy of the past sixty plus years was based on a fluke—cheap energy. Nor do I see anyone telling the public that there are limits—namely ecological—to economic growth. Rather, what I see is a bunch of people whom I assume (maybe incorrectly) are smart enough to know better, telling the public that as soon as you elect us all these problems will be over. The Democrats are going to save us by investing money in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and research, thus making America a leader in the “new economy.” The Republicans are going make the country number one by reducing regulations and taxes, and by going to war with anyone who stands in our way. And the Libertarians live in some fantasy world wherein these mythical entities called markets are going to save us, that is, as soon as we relinquish all control to them. The one thing all these ideologies (I suppose that’s what one calls them) have in common is that they all assume it is possible and/or desirable to have unlimited growth, and that there are indeed no limiting factors in the world.

When I see a sober minded politician stand up and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, from this point forward we must acknowledge that there are limits to 1) how big the economy can grow, 2) how much money and things we can all have, and 3) what the planet is capable of sustaining,” I might be inclined to believe someone is indeed shaking up the political order. It might also be nice if this person or persons could see fit to add a few words in about finding meaning in something other than money, like you know—family, friendship, and community. Until then I suppose I will remain skeptical, and much like Kerouac, tend to wonder if all this talk about family values and community isn’t just that—talk.

And if you reject strict constitutionalism, what alternative theory of constitutional interpretation are you advancing? Because you can’t just ignore the thing or pretend it doesn’t exist. Do you advocate a “living and breathing” constitution? A broad interpretation of the commerce clause?

The problems with conservative rejection of strict constitutionalism are so many they deserve their own essay.

Ah hum – we ain’t all gentlemen here ya know.

The part I would object to is the is the “MTR mining improves the land by producing flat spots for parks and sports fields”. Seriously – if this guy really can’t figure why a remark like “this used to be a mountain and now it is a flat park” demonstrates a complete idiocy than I have serious doubts about entrusting him with protecting constitutional rights.

One of the issues with the notion of framer worship (and strict constitutionalism) is that the framers did not have the technology to remove mountaintops at great profit to the mountain top remover whilst polluting the water, creating mudslides and in general doing little to improve the public well being (mercury poisoning anyone?). There are lots of things about our world today ( nucelar bombs for example) the framer’s could not imagine which makes 18th century notions re: property rights just a tad questionable within the 21st century context.

I appreciate the temptation to poke a stick in both the dems and republicans eyes – something that might make them all notice we are thoroughly fed up with the lot of them has great merit. But isn’t Paul just another example of voting for a candidate not because they are worthy but because there isn’t anything better around?

Bruce, words mean things, and that is just absurd.

Ron Paul is admittedly a philosophical libertarian, although he is a paleolibertarian. But his political program as expressed is pure dogmatic constitutionalism. I submit this is entirely conservative in effect. What part of strict constitutionalism would you gentlemen object to? And if there is some part of strict constitutionalism you would object to, wouldn’t you at least admit that it would require an amendment to change it.

I’m certainly not trying to campaign on behalf of Paul. But I do think his father has, on average, been a beneficial force, regardless of whatever ideological commitments he has made. It is quite possible I’m being naive, but I’m hoping the same might be the case with the younger Paul, should he become a senator.

He might not admit the need to restrain corporations, but one can at least rest assured that he’s not going to actively subsidize them.

The Pauls have been very vocal against NAIS, a significant issue in my mind. Paul also is the only candidate in the race who has expressed solidarity with the homeschooling movement, and has made an issue of reining in educrats.

At best — and this is admittedly optimistic — Paul possibly represents an inclination to openly question the current order, and reconsider first principles.

A fear of such questioning is, IMO, what is driving the “kook” meme — the same apparatchiks now spreading it would employ the exact same sophistry against Wendell Berry, in the unlikely event Berry’s writings ever began to be taken seriously in his native state.

As to mountaintop removal, certainly this is a serious objection to Paul’s campaign — and one of the many reasons I felt obliged to compose a lengthy disclaimer.

The video is almost humorous, like a Saturday Night Live sketch. I mean, “MTR mining improves the land by producing flat spots for parks and sports fields,” sounds like self-parody.

Before simply labeling him a libertarian, however, I think it fair to point out that I very easily dug up a lot of libertarian criticism against both Pauls, due to their position on abortion.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html

Naturally Reagan was a fan of Ayn Rand:

http://theatlassociety.org/news_celebrity_ayn_rand_ronald_reagan.asp

Of course, it never occurred to Reagan, or Ayn Rand for that matter, that both collective sovereignty (democracy) and individual sovereignty should both co-exist in the world. This was an important point back then as it is now. Permit me to illustrate this with some history.

Paul Volcker was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Jimmy Carter in 1979 and re-appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1983. However, Volcker was a regulator and Reagan was a Libertarian, market fundamentalist de-regulator and when Reagan realized Volcker wasn’t going to do his bidding he got rid of him in 1987 and replaced him with a really big Ayn Rand fan and de-regulator Alan Greenspan. The era of serious Wall Street gambling then began with the lending of US banks to the financial sector, as opposed to the real economy of manufacturing and non-financial services, going from 60% of outstanding loan stock in 1980 to 80% in 2007. It had been 50% in the 1950’s as the big push for home ownership (homes fit for heroes) began but the ending of the trade embargo with China in 1972 by Richard Nixon (another de-regulator) meant reduced loan investment in American manufacturing as American capitalists rushed to invest in lower cost Chinese manufacturing plants. However, the house price inflation of the 1970’s, where in a decade the average new home more than doubled in price, showed the banks how house inflation pumping could make even more profit from capital growth than just plain old steady house prices with mortgage compound interest lending. This plus speculation in fancy financial products, commodities and the carry trade more than made up for the lower loan profits to be had from the real economy. Now the wheel has come full circle where Obama The Ditherer is backing off taking advice on bank regulation from Lawrence Summers his Director of the National Economic Council and supporting Paul Volcker the Chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It was Lawrence Summers who resisted advice to regulate the growth of the derivatives market when he was Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton’s Presidency. As a consequence the American tax payer has had to finance $180 billion’s worth of bail-out money to the insurance company AIG’s derivative counter parties who are mainly investment banks like Goldman Sachs as well as foreign banks. As Joseph Stilglitz, the former World Bank Chief Economist, has said to put this in perspective the $180 billion would have provided all of Africa’s foreign aid relief for the next twenty five years.

I think it’s possible to see that America’s problem is that it has allowed two rabid dogs to roam free. One dog is called Capitalism and the other is called Government. The first named dog dominates the latter and makes it do its bidding. The only way forward is for the American people to use their Collective Sovereignty to put both on a leash. Rand Paul is a long, long way from understanding this and that it is actually Libertarianism that allows these rabid dogs to roam free!

Conservatives don’t generally reject to the idea of legal rights. Rights that are hard won through the course of time. The Magna Carta, the rights of Englishmen etc. What they object to is the notion of “universal human rights” which are arrived at by man’s reason. (Whether God given inalienable rights are less problematic is open for debate.) One good thing about constitutionalism is that it is really defending legal rights, regardless of what other flowery language the constitutionalist might use. Also, defending the constitution as originally intended and invoking the “Founders” is inherently conservative. The most muddled headed libertarian Utopian sounds like a reactionary when he is calling for following the intent of the Founders against some new fangled interpretation.