Saturday, February 25, 2017

Ron Paul and the "libertarian statists"

Ron Paul and the "libertarian statists" - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

February 22,2017 - "The role of U.S. Libertarian Party (LP) Chair is an administrative position, that normally receives little public attention. That changed this January, after the current Chair, Nicholas Sarwark, appeared on a year-end Lions of Liberty podcast to discuss the 2016 LP presidential campaign of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. One comment in that 40-minute interview “caused an eruption in comments on Facebook,' and a 'debate [that] raged on social media'.

"During the discussion, the podcast host contrasted Johnson’s messaging with Ron Paul’s 'ideologically pure' libertarian message; to which Sarwark responded 'that you "run a very dangerous line" by identifying [libertarian] beliefs with any one personality.' Then Sarwark made the comment that touched off the storm, saying of Paul:
“He had policy prescriptions that were straight-up wrong and anti-libertarian. None of us should be given a pass on having to have actual libertarian positions, or not be able to be called out when you say you oppose marriage equality. You know, that’s not a libertarian position to have. State’s rights is not a libertarian position, and it’s something Ron Paul had pushed for a long time.”
"'Libertarian Party Chairman Denounces Ron Paul’s Support for States’ Rights,' was the headline on a Ron Paul Institute article by Adam Dick. 'The Libertarian Party believes Ron Paul is not a Libertarian,' headlined Liberty Conservative, with writer Chris Dixon smugly commenting: 'Before criticizing others for not being libertarian, the Libertarian Party should probably learn what it means to be a libertarian first'....

"Both fortunately and unfortunately, the storm blew over quickly. Fortunately, because it seemed like little more than an attempt by anti-LP libertarians to embarrass an LP figure, similar to many of the criticisms of Johnson and Weld during the campaign. Unfortunately, because (aside from [Mike] Maharrey’s contribution) there was little to no attempt to address the substantive issue that it reflected.

"At issue is the question of using the U.S. Bill of Rights, and the federal courts, to protect individual rights from state governments as well as from the federal government. Libertarians like Sarwark argue that 'the Federal government can protect the equal rights of people from state discrimination' – while 'states’ rights' advocates like Maharrey claim that one 'simply can’t reconcile [that idea] with the Constitution. Whether you agree philosophically with Sarwark’s constitutional construction or not, no founding era evidence exists to support it.'"

Read more:
'via Blog this'

1 comment:

  1. I think the last true Libertarian was Harry Browne.