An article by Gary Luongo on today's LewRockwell site is entitled "Has Ron Paul Become Our Guy Fawkes?" The piece is the sort of eulogy -- the typical rosebuds thrown in the path of this social conservative who aspires to power over others -- that I've come to expect from 'libertarians' who used to critique political power but who now write checks to promote it. I understand: they never were against political power only against using it for causes off their agenda. Thus, Luongo is able to state As flawed, immoral and cynical as the political system is inherently, at times, it can serve as a mechanism for us to do great things; to make great statements no matter how much our masters may hate us for doing so. Note to Luongo...you do understand that something being inherently "immoral and cynical" means that it is always and irredeemably "immoral and cynical" and, so, cannot "at times" be the opposite? Ah well...I am not here to point out the many internal inconsistencies of the article. Back to Guy Fawkes whose claim to fame was a failed attempt to blow up British Parliament in 1605.

I don't get it. So Guy Fawkes was used as a role model in a comic book (actually a wonderful graphic novel V for Vendetta that was trashed by its movie adaptation)...does that make him a libertarian ideal? There was nothing libertarian about Fawkes. He was a Catholic crusader who wanted to blow up Parliament as part-and-parcel of removing a Protestant monarch from power. He wasn't against government or tyranny; he was against one form of government that he wanted to replace with another form he liked better: a Catholic one. There is no indication that Fawkes was a champion of the people whose personal vision of political power would have produced less tyranny than what proceeded it. Certainly, 17th century Catholic states were no more tolerant than Protestant ones -- indeed, the Protestant Netherlands were freer and more tolerant than most. If wanting to overthrow a government per se makes you a libertarian, why not idealize Che Guevara? At least he was a successful revolutionary.