I have not been commenting much on Ron Paul lately because I think he will be a non-issue after the primaries and his cult status will go the way of other meteoric 'pro-freedom' politicians from Henry George in the 1890s to Ross Perot in the 1990s -- that is, in a downward spiral. Instead, I have been acting as a conduit for other people's commentary. In truth, my reticence also comes from finding the task of critiquing Paul to be tiresome on several levels. I was beginning to repeat myself, which is tedious to everyone...not least of all me. I am criticizing old friends, some of whom I hope to continue calling 'friend' after the electoral madness has passed like a fever.

I will comment, however, on one or two aspects of Walter Block's recent article on LewRockwell.com.: An Open Letter to Libertarians On Behalf of Ron Paul, Part II. BTW, I have been on friendly terms with Walter Block for decades now and, so, I will be calling him Walter with no intended diminishment of his Dr. Block status. Walter's writing is in italics. My writing/responses are in blue.

Oh well...nothing to do but launch in, I suppose.

Walter writes, In my view, the "Ron Paul question" constitutes a litmus test for libertarians. Simply put, the "Ron Paul question" consists of determining whether or not a person supports Dr. Paul. If so, as I see matters, he passes this test and can be constituted a libertarian; if not, his credentials are to that extent suspect.

My response: Again, the idea that it necessary to back a particular politician in order to be a credentialed libertarian. Thus, Walter dismisses without having to out-argue the various reasons a thorough-going libertarian might oppose Paul. Such reasons include anarchistic objections to the use of political power; non-ideological objections to electoral politics that lead you to strongly prefer a different path to liberty; your wish to support an LP candidate rather than a Republican one; and, a deep disagreement with one (or some) of Paul's significant stands (such as immigration). Every true libertarian supports Ron Paul; no true libertarian opposes him.

My reaction is threefold. First, to quote Sunni Maravillosa, What happened to the understanding that liberty is, first and foremost, an individualistic idea and pursuit? How did it happen that to achieve liberty we must all unite and act as one, pulling the great lever for The One Man Fit to Rule Us All? Second, this is a logical fallacy that is virtually identical to the one famously presented by Antony Flew as "the no true Scotsman fallacy." (In an earlier post, I presented a no true libertarian/no true Scotsman comparison: click here.) Third, this is a base form of argument-- or, rather, it is a way to avoid argument and substitute quasi ad hominem in its place. It is an pre-emptive attack upon the character of an opponent and, IMO, usually signals intellectual weakness on the part of the attacker and/or his position.

Walter goes on to describe the objections to Ron Paul of "some anarcho-capitalist libertarians" into which category I am included by name even though I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I do have principled objections to electoral politics, however, and I believe that is the relevant distinction being made.

In rebuttal to the rejection of electoral politics, Walter writes, Suppose a slave master allows his slaves to choose between Overseer Goody, who has a very light and judicious touch with the whip, and Overseer Baddy, who never met a bloody back he didn’t like. The slaves take up the master on his offer, and vote for Goody. Are they thereby demonstrating support for slavery, for goodness sakes? No; they are only registering a preference for Goody over Baddy.

I will adopt the slave/master rhetoric in answering. If Walter wishes to register his preference about whom he wishes as a master, then I not only have no objection, I also have no interest. It is his body with which to genuflect or not. But Walter knows full well (or he used to) that this is not the objection offered by libertarian anarchists. A voter acts not merely to establish his own preference as master, he acts to put his preferred master in a position of unjust power over unconsenting others. It is this unconsenting "3rd party" problem from which anarchist objections arise. Walter is actively sanctioning -- indeed, apparently rejoicing in -- the 'transfer' of rights from unconsenting individuals into the hands of a master to whom they object but whom Walter prefers. You may well disagree with the 3rd party argument. But my point here is simply that this -- and not the strawman Walter presents to knock down -- is the anarchist argument.

Walter writes, Even Spooner, who might be considered patron saint of this viewpoint, regarded voting, and, presumably, holding public office, as a defensive, not an invasive, act.

It is impossible to comment without knowing which of Spooner's writings are being referenced. In his younger years, Spooner was a staunch supporter of the Constitution and his work was used as campaign material for the Liberty Party, which had been formed in 1840 from anti-slavery societies. In the 1850s, however, a shift in his political views was evident and that shift solidified due to the Civil War. For example, until the CW, Spooner labored to integrate the principles of the Constitution with those of natural law. His pamphlet series No Treason abandoned that attempt with No VI of the No Treason series being subtitled "The Constitution of No Authority." (For more details on this shift, please see "Lysander Spooner", an essay I wrote for Freedom Daily.) The later Spooner was quite clear about rejecting electoral politics and the authority of all elected politicians.

Walter further argues, every last one of the anarcho-capitalists who object to his candidacy on this ground, use the sidewalks for walking, the streets and roads for driving, U.S. currency for making purchases, post letters with the U.S. postal service, visit state libraries, museums, etc. It ill behooves so-called libertarian anarchists, who do not fully understand either of these two philosophies, to object to Ron Paul’s actions, which are in this one way indistinguishable from their own.

There is a difference of kind between walking down a sidewalk and electing someone to a position of unjust power over unconsenting others. Henry David Thoreau captured the difference well. In his pivotal work On Civil Disobedience, Thoreau maintained that no one had the obligation to confront, disobey or take any position whatsoever toward the state so long as his or her actions did not injure the person or rights of an innocent 3rd party. Otherwise, it is quite proper for a person to go about "the business of living" and deal with the state when and as it is prudent. Case in point: Although Thoreau did not like to pay taxes, nevertheless he did so when money was demanded from him to pay the salary of a teacher in his village. The tax he famously refused to pay was one that supported the Mexican American War; he refused to have his money used to harm innocent others. Assisting a politician into a position of unjust authority is a direct assault upon the rights and well being of the innocent 3rd parties over whom he asserts his power. Walking down a sidewalk is a difference of kind, not of degree.

There is much more to Walter's article and I could spend the rest of my evening in back-and-forth responses. But I have touched on the objections directed toward anarchists and it is getting late. If I were to continue, however, I would leave the question of "should you vote for Ron Paul?" and go on to the separate one of "is Ron Paul a Libertarian?" My answer to the latter is not defined by anarchist theory but by a more general libertarianism. Of course, the answer to both is a resounding NO.