About Ron Paul

... for among other reasons, the useless confusion it sows where somehow various bunches of socialists can end up on opposite ends of the scale.

The first place I ever heard a different idea for a political scale was an essay from Jerry Pournelle:

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Here's another possibility:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Arguably a bit easier to understand than Pournelle's quadrants. It doesn't entirely do away with the left-right continuum; it simply modifies it.

I agree, Simon.

In a perfect world the two parties would be talking about this. They would explain where they see the limits to government power, and in what legal, historical and moral context they place them. They avoid that conversation because it would highlight the nonsensical pairing of theocrat and plutocrat on the GOP side, and the pairing of quasi-communist authoritarian and classical liberal on the democratic side.

Both parties have their moderate libertarians, their weary can-we-just-get-the-job-done-and-go-home people: people and politicians primarily interested in solving actual as opposed to invented problems. But they suffer because of their refusal to buy voters' loyalty with governmental favors -- favors that range from money to moral posturing. And they are demagogued to death for their pragmatic willingness to compromise and their failure to swear allegiance on whatever nutball issue the wingers are humping at any particular time.

I suppose we could round up all the Roves and Conyers and Gingriches and Pelosis and Dobsons and Moulitsases and isolate them in an uninhabited state (perhaps Kansas) . . . but I'm pretty sure that would be over the line into unacceptable government action.

Pity.

Ron Paul does have an interpretation of the Constitution that is very restrictive. There are some issues that are debatable. Yet, the pattern in the congress does not show that debate. When Ron Paul says that certain action is unconstitutional, fellow representatives either look sheepish and say nothing or claim loudly, "But we have to do something." We can disagree with Paul on particular details and yet still agree in principle. In principle, the legality of proposed legislation is primary.

As far as his principles being more restrictive than the Constitution, well there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that the government fill up all power allowed by the Constitution. It is illigal to fill it up beyond those limits, though. There is a wide range of legality. Ron Paul is a conservative, so of course, he will lean toward smaller government, even smaller than what is needed to bring it to within legality.

flawed and limited, and that Hayek was onto something when he pointed out that authoritarian socialists and authoritarian fascists at the end of the day, meet in the same place, but I find this statement somewhat dubious:

Onto this scale we fit fascism, socialism and modern American liberalism somewhere between the authoritarian pole and the center, and the GOP pitches a broad tent that stops somewhere short of the pure libertarian pole and overlaps the center somewhat (it cannot be gainsaid that there are authoritarian elements in the GOP, especially among social conservatives).

I have a real problem including modern American liberalism among the authoritarian wing of the spectrum. I find that ridiculous. Keep in mind that I'm referring to authentic liberalism, and not the impostor variants that certain so-called "progressives" embrace today. I also think you somewhat understate the authoritarian impulses on the GOP.

As to Ron Paul himself, I find his views hopelessly out of the mainstream, and out of the bounds of acceptability. Grover Norquist wants to drown the government in a tub, but Paul goes even further (I can't think of a witty way to extend the metaphor). Like Kucinich, his views are pure lunacy, but it cannot be gainsaid :) that he does have a strong following amongst his cult-like supporters :), and one almost has to respect his consistency.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Uni-dimensional scaling will ALWAYS produce misleading and downright disfunctional results. People use single-scale descriptions because they want to fit things into neat categories for convenience. Problem being that people are complex sentient organic critters, not composed of either/or logic switches.

Or, for a briefer but more obscure take, man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing animal.

Personally, I think that much of your commentary is based on confusions, but since I don't care to author a book in response, let's just discuss one point. You state:

"Regular readers may not be too surprised by that, knowing that I take federalism pretty seriously. But federalism isn't an expression of libertarianism; it isn't a view of what government can morally do, but rather, an expression of which government can legally do what under Our Federalism."

First of all, not all forms of libertarianism, indeed, not most forms of libertarianism, are morally based. Most have to do with economic theory or the theory of how far you can turn government loose to do good before you end up in a tyranny.

Second, some libertarians, even some, gasp, anarchists, also take "federalism pretty seriously." Proudhon wrote a book on the subject.

Third, [or is it just an extension of the second point?], federalism isn't limited to what "government can legally do ... under Our Federalism." Federalism is both one of the traditional meanings of "freedom" and a traditional strategy for preserving freedom. The notion is a simple one best illustrated in contemporary times by the Swiss canton system. You and your friends can associate with one another in a particular locality, be as socially oppressive or libertarian as you may want, and still form a "higher level" and much more limited union with other localities [each with their own internal systems] for purposes of common defense, preserving a free trade area, etc.

You may have heard of this idea in another incarnation - the pre-Civil War United States. A great deal of what substantive freedom meant in the early U.S. had little to do with abstract bills of rights [which, in any case, were unevenly inforced] and a lot to do with the fact that the states were in theory and practice sovereigns and localities were in practice [if not in theory] pretty near to sovereign. Hence, you could have "utopian communities" like the Shakers and no one else much cared unless they were attacked by Canadians.

when I was in my very early teens. At the same time I was asked to swallow the idea that Stalin and Hitler were situated on opposite ends of the spectrum. That I found positively astonishing. I couldn't see much useful difference between the two, except that they targeted different groups of people when they weren't killing Jews. I concluded that the left/right distinction wasn't very useful and that insofar as it was, the extreme ends curved around to meet each other. I guess I'm not quite as weird as I was led to believe...

The Walrus Said

I disagree on two points--one that an extreme candidate is un-electable, and two that an extreme president would be bad for the nation.

For whatever credence it's worth, several odds makers have posited that Ron Paul would be one of the strongest Republican challengers to Barak or Hillary. This could be because he has stronger anti-war non-interventionist credentials. Could also be due to his more forthright and direct demeanor (and fewer skeletons for swift boaters to exploit). Further, Ron Paul has broad appeal from all parts of the political spectrum (my meet-up group is only about half republicans). He can debate with the best of them on the substantive terms that will arrive with the general election campaign.

Second, is is true that among the groupspeaking cadre of presidential hopefuls Ron Paul stands out as the most different and extreme. Would this be bad for the country? I doubt it. Even a heavy ballast does not keep a large ship from tilting. A strong President with an extreme agenda can do only so much in the realm of policymaking, with the bulk left to Congress' whim.

His greatest immediate impact would be in the area of foreign policy, where many reasonable minds can differ but the reality is that we cannot fiscally afford a continuation of the present course. Diplomats, cultural emmissaries and intelligence operatives cost way less than soldiers and air missions--and Ron Paul is on record promising to replace the latter with many more of the former.

As to the size of government, Ron Paul could wield the veto and force Congress and the nation to think harder before further enlarging the government or continuing its bloated programs. That could not be a bad thing, right--to actually force a reasoned debate on critical decisions?

Perhaps most importantly, a Ron Paul presidency would give us 4-8 years of something we haven't had in a long time--a transparent and informed executive branch. We probably all agree that a perfectly constitutional government is not ideal in this day and age, but it would be a dramatic move in the right direction if our President could actually lead us in thought instead of forcing their will upon us with lies and red herrings.

We the growing many are supporting and voting for Ron Paul. What risk do you have in joining us, if he's such a longshot?

Update by Pat: edited to show a more recent timestamp, so the comment will show up in the recent comments block. Pacer, thanks for your post, and please consider becoming a registered user; your comments will then show up immediately. We have to moderate comments from unregistered users because of problems with spam.

You seemed to underplay the current situation we are in presently. If there is to be any revolution it must break out of the mainstream, and scare people. Americans do not even know how to question their teachers appropriately let alone their government. This is due to the abolishment of logic and rational faculties. I would ask how you "the writer of the article" has stepped out of the mainstream, for i highly doubt that--people boast that they are individuals when they can provide no method to become one. Ron Paul is a REAL candidate, and that is why people are supporting him. He is the only candidate I have seen in a long while who actually uses logic when going over the issues, does not pull red-herrings, and lives/practices what he preaches--a very rare quality. You seemed to have missed some important issues that are the binding of his campaign. It is not just the war, it is the document which our country was based upon. With limited govt we can still produce and be much a profitable nation. It will not hinder our growth, and you cannot say that the elimination of the income tax does not sound appealing. People are very timid to step far away from this social construct, but I (and apparently an array of others) will take the steps for a revolution...we are in due need of one. I will never choose the better of evils, and this actually gives me reason to vote. I doubt he will win, and even if he does he will be assassinated. It is a great thing to see how many people understand the word, however. And very understandable why most do not.