Ron Paul vs. the Libertarian Party

lib·er·tar·i·an n.

1. An advocate of the doctrine of free will.
2. a: a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action b: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

I think most of us can agree that free will and individual liberty are pretty important - and was once taken very seriously in manuscripts like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The essentials are clear enough, but I suspect many Libertarians aren't really taking the necessary dose of their own medicine.

One main idea is that life, liberty, and happiness came first, and then governments were instituted by men to protect these things, or at least the freedom to pursue them according to one's ability. So, the question our founding fathers had to ask themselves was something like..."How do we protect the rights of every citizen from coercion without breaking our own rule?" Considering the tendency for civilizations to fall to tyranny, how do we protect every individual in future generations from:

• Autocracy
• Oligarchy
• Tyranny of the Majority
  

We call ourselves a democracy, but the founding fathers were terrified of a true direct democracy. In such a system, 51% could legally rule over the remaining 49%. And they knew that 80% of the electorate were blithering idiots anyway even if they did pay attention to what was going on. So we ended up with a Constitutional Republic, and use a democratic system to elect the representatives. And then there were the three branches, checks and balances, serving to protect the country from the droves of raving lunatics we were bound to elect. Yada yada. You know all this. But as we observe what they did, it's perhaps even more important to remember the reasons they did it.

They did it because throughout history civilizations always tend to fall to one sort of tyranny or another. The state always eventually exploits the people it was founded to protect for its own preservation, making it the cause of the problem rather than the solution. This is what all the founding fathers attempted to avoid. We see evidence of self-preservation tendencies today whenever government "steals from Peter to pay Paul" in order to secure Paul's support (earmarks, subsidies, etc.). Recently, it has also done things like wiretapping, and all that Big Brother stuff associated with the war on terror. These things all corrode individual liberties and consolidate power into the hands of the state. So, would the authors of the Constitution condone this behavior?

Most think the Constitution is great because it can be amended to fit a changing society. This may be true to some extent, but more importantly, its principles continue to persist after 230 years. These principles were true thousands of years ago and they will likely persist thousands of years from now. In a rapidly changing society, there is a temptation to believe that these principles can be sacrificed for the greater good - a fallacious argument repeated time and again by individuals or groups who would benefit from such a thing at the expense of everyone else.

The general consensus is still...Individual liberty = the common good. Since no one knows any one else's definition of happiness, every individual must be protected from coercion by others, and allowed to use their capabilities for their own benefit to the greatest degree possible though voluntary cooperation and mutually beneficial contract. All the states could somehow agree with this in the late 18th century, and as far as I know, it's still the law - on paper anyway. And since we have this freedom, we can choose how to spend it ourselves. We sacrifice liberty when we get a job, get married, or join a curling league. But the point is, we get to choose, not the government.

Anyway, the protection of one's intellectual and religious freedom was at the core of our system, and motivated by the principles of individual liberty - the same thing the Libertarian party is dedicated to. Is the Libertarian party subject to the same corrosive influences our founding fathers battled? Absolutely. How has the Libertarian party fared compared to the US government? Not so good.

Here's the problem. You need to respect everyone's right to express their ideas if you are a true libertarian, as long as they don't cause harm or silence others. Surprise! Some libertarians have really whacked-out views. In fact, those that cling to their right of expression despite constant and overwhelming popular opposition are most dependent on liberty - even while blithely rejecting its fundamentals themselves! Given the inclusive principles of liberty, it seems inevitable that the most abhorred outcasts at the fringes of society will call themselves Libertarians, then use any success of the party to trumpet their minority positions. It's the same thing lobbyists and special interests do to take advantage of the US government. It's the opposition to such behavior that attracted many to the Libertarians to the party in the first place.

Now that Ron Paul has gained some support, those same wackos are trying to hijack his candidacy as well. Neo-confederates, secessionists, 911 truthers have all come out of the woodwork in wild support of Dr. Paul. And the nation, which detests such views, is noticing. In response to this, to protect the reputation of the Libertarian party, many of its members are distancing themselves from the Paul campaign. They still agree with Paul's ideas and his message, but believe the preservation of the Libertarian party is more important.

I think we must face the fact that the libertarian community does include many racists and other unsavory characters who see in our message of limited government an opportunity to act on their creepy impulses—people whose own hostility to the state is rooted not in a love of individual freedom and human initiative as ours is, but in an opposition to modernity, secularism, equality, urban life and bourgeois values. We must make it clear that they aren’t welcome in our big tent.
-Freespace

I have a warning for members of the Libertarian party. Liberty is always going to be most attractive to the minority; the outcasts along the fringe. To support liberty it may be our individual duty to renounce the wackos, correct them, or let them frolic to make fools of themselves, but no group or individual has authority to silence them - much less one with respect for liberty. We must depend on a society best poised to allow their opponents the freedom to refute them. Liberty is a brutally honest thing, and a thing to be feared. It opens the flood gates allowing the loons to parade the streets in support of that which society rejects. It gives a mouthpiece to the ignorant, and to the knowledgeable, and expects truth will prevail. We accept it for many reasons. For example, the possibility that one day, throughout the centuries, there might come a time when one loon is proven right.

So it comes down to this. The defender of liberty is now being challenged. For those who believe Ron Paul's message is sound...Are you willing to defend your beliefs despite attacks to your character based on fallacious associations? Are you willing to pledge your life, fortune, and sacred honor in defense of liberty, or the Libertarian party? Does a libertarian employ their right to champion what is unpopular because it is right? Or, do they employ their right to defer their responsibility to an organization dedicated to promote liberty on their behalf? Can such an organization ever be true to its principles?

A population fooled into supporting individual liberty has already lost it.

(Some of this inspired by chapter 2 of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill).