OPEN LETTER TO LIBERTARIANS

Each letter endeavors to show the members of a particular group why voting for Ron Paul will advance their interests and values. The common presupposition of these letters is that it isn’t obvious what the connection is between Ron Paul and each particular group. Why, e.g., should Jews, Arab-Americans, or Protestants be concerned with Ron Paul’s views? To respond requires that one show the connections between Ron Paul’s program and the beliefs each of the groups holds: the tie isn’t present on the surface.

For libertarians, no such letter should be necessary. Ron Paul is a libertarian and, moreover, the only presidential candidate in either the Republican or Democratic Parties who is a libertarian. It should not then be necessary to write an open letter: libertarians should support Ron Paul because he is one of us! What could be more evident?

Most libertarians, it is safe to say, do see matters this way and enthusiastically support Ron Paul. Unfortunately, a few do not. I’d like in this letter to respond to the main arguments that I’ve read coming from these dissenters. No names will be mentioned, though; I propose to paraphrase the arguments rather than attack particular people. There is more than enough of the latter activity in The Mises Review.

The libertarian arguments against Ron Paul fall into two main classes. First, supporting anyone for President involves accepting the political system of the United States. But isn’t it a basic principle of libertarianism that, as Murray Rothbard put it, the State is a criminal gang? If it is, how can one justifiably support a candidate for Chief Gangster?

In contrast to this objection, the second group of complaints concerns points about Ron Paul specifically. Various writers criticize his stance on abortion, immigration, the constitution, and his "cultural style." The critics are in most cases "left libertarians" and Ron Paul decidedly is not.

Before responding to these difficulties, I should like to sketch the positive case for supporting Ron Paul. (Sometimes it doesn’t hurt to spell out the obvious.) The Bush Administration has since March 2003 waged an immoral war against Iraq that has cost the lives of thousands of people. The suffering and destruction caused by the war has been immense. War, furthermore, is the principal means by which the State increases its power; and under Bush the government has made unprecedented inroads on civil liberties through the misnamed Patriot Act. Torture of those suspected of terrorism is common practice.

Ron Paul will end all of that. He calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Further, he would secure America from foreign dangers by a return to our traditional foreign policy of nonintervention. Under a Ron Paul administration, "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy" would again become our policy. Of this there is no room for doubt. His collection of speeches to Congress, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, displays thirty years of consistent advocacy of opposition to war and statism.

Much to my surprise, at least one dissenter has portrayed Ron Paul as an advocate of war. He called for Congress to declare war rather than pass a resolution authorizing Bush to act in Iraq as he thought best. In doing so, Paul wished to recall Congress to its responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution. A declaration of war, as congressional supporters of the war were not slow to point out, is much more difficult to pass than an authorization resolution. This was precisely Ron Paul's point; he did not of course favor war himself. When he introduced the war resolution in committee (and the late Henry Hyde told him such an idea was "anachronistic," then had that remark removed from the record), he voted against it. Though the record of his speeches makes his position entirely clear, this dissenter has persisted in calling Paul a supporter of the war.

Because Ron Paul consistently opposes the Iraq war, his electoral campaign holds enormous promise. The Iraq war is vastly unpopular, yet the major establishment candidates propose either to continue, or at most slightly to modify, Bush’s foolish and reckless policies. In particular, many conservative Republicans oppose the war but would not vote for anyone they consider leftwing. Ron Paul holds great appeal to these many voters. Liberal Democrats who oppose the war will find Paul’s strong support for civil liberties attractive. Here, for once, libertarians have a chance to back a candidate with a good chance of winning.

Ron Paul’s stellar record is not confined to foreign policy. He proposes to get rid of the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service. He will abolish the Departments of Homeland Security and Education. He will restore the gold standard. Given this platform, as well as his transparent probity, how can any libertarian fail to support Ron Paul?

However good his program, though, isn’t Ron Paul attempting to become head of the criminal gang that constitutes the State? To come to grips with this question, we need to ask, why is the State a criminal gang? As Franz Oppenheimer, Albert Jay Nock, and Murray Rothbard have explained, the State is not a productive organization. To the contrary, it seizes property from the productive members of society. Given this understanding, we can see that the objection against Ron Paul fails completely. His proposals are all efforts to curtail the exactions of the State, not to continue or extend them. The objectors count both political supporters and opponents of State power as "statists." Apparently, by participating in the electoral process, regardless of the program one advocates, one incurs some sort of pollution. Murray Rothbard, the man who said that the State is a criminal gang, thought otherwise. He and Ron Paul were close friends, and he vigorously supported Ron Paul’s run for the presidency in 1988.

Does it not make more sense to listen to the founder of the modern libertarian movement than "purists" who are plus royaliste que le roi? Rothbard scorned those who disdain political action. Interested only in their supposed ideological purity, they retreat to an intellectual pantisocracy and display little interest in actually securing libertarian political objectives.

Some critics of Ron Paul concentrate their complaints against particular positions he holds. He strongly opposes the Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion and calls for policy on abortion to be determined by the states, not the federal government. Some libertarians who strongly support the right to abortion are dismayed, but they shouldn’t be. A strong federal government is inimical to liberty, and no libertarian should support strengthening its power. One way to limit the federal government is to insist on strict adherence to the Constitution. The Constitution, though far inferior to the Articles of Confederation, leaves all but a strictly limited set of powers to the states. No power to regulate abortion is granted to the federal government. Some of course claim that the Fourteenth Amendment changes matters, but it requires very strained interpretation to conjure a right to abortion out of the text of this Amendment. One critic of Ron Paul has admitted that Roe v. Wade is bad law but thinks we should somehow get to the "correct" pro-abortion view. Is this not to surrender the possibility of constitutional limits on the federal government? Even those enamored of legalized abortion should realize the imperative necessity of not allowing the federal government to trespass its constitutional limits. If the critics respond that to them, the right to abortion outweighs all else, that is their business; but they should realize the grave dangers of their position. Murray Rothbard certainly did not adopt their view. He supported abortion rights, but this did not in the slightest induce him to qualify his support for Ron Paul.

Some object to Ron Paul because he does not support an "open borders" immigration policy. But why should one take this position to be essential to libertarianism? Hans Hoppe has raised strong objections to open borders; and Murray Rothbard, in his last years, abandoned the view. Free immigration combined with a welfare state is a dangerous brew: does it make sense to reject Ron Paul because he cannot accept it?
I fear that some of the critics will reply that it does. They prefer to insist that anyone who does not accept every jot and tittle of the version of libertarianism revealed to them is unworthy of consideration. Never mind that with Ron Paul we have a chance to end the Iraq war: he has not subscribed to every article of the creed.

They prefer to say with St. Augustine, dixi et salvavi animam meam.

Oddly, some of the same people who condemn Ron Paul for apostasy are themselves so devoted to "left libertarianism" that they subordinate libertarian principles to certain cultural values. They favor gender equality and are concerned lest we think ill of certain preferred minority groups. Libertarianism, they think, will best promote these values, and this fact is for them a chief reason to support libertarianism. Others, not confined to left libertarians, believe in change for its own sake: science and technology will create for us a bright future, freeing us from hidebound traditionalism.

Both the left libertarians and the devotees of technology find fault with Ron Paul. He is not cosmopolitan enough for them: he is so benighted as to defend the traditional family. Almost as bad, he is a genuine American patriot, who opposes NAFTA and similar agreements as inimical to American national interests. To me, these are virtues, not defects; but let us for the sake of argument assume that the values of the left libertarians and the technologists – those Rothbard termed "space cadets" – are correct.

Does not the question then arise, should libertarianism be subordinated to these values? For Rothbard, liberty is the highest political values. For some of Ron Paul’s critics, it isn’t: only libertarians who pass their cultural litmus test merit support. The vast majority of libertarians have the good sense to reject such nonsense.