Ron Paul and the Death Penalty

Ron Paul has written a very good piece regarding the death penalty.  I will begin with his conclusion:

Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.

As I have developed in libertarian thought, I have moved away from acceptance of the death penalty.  I would say that I agree with every word written by Dr. Paul in this piece, but “every” is always a dangerous word; so let’s just says I agree with virtually every word.

He wrote a very interesting paragraph; I will break it up into bite-sized pieces:

As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger.

This paragraph comes right before the conclusion; a good portion of what precedes the paragraph examines the practical arguments: the death penalty is an expensive undertaking; pretty much everything that government touches isn’t run well (think TSA and a 95% failure rate).

But it is the moral case that interests me – and it is a moral case that is accepted within every major religious tradition and also within the non-aggression principle: the right to (call it “ownership of” if you like) my life, to be free from coercion.  The Golden Rule (although I like the application of the Silver Rule, personally).

Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.”

This is the sentence that struck me.  This is precisely what is accepted by a good portion of the American population when it comes to the myriad overseas adventures since 911…and Vietnam…and World War Two…and…well, you get it.

It is the idea that makes “collateral damage” acceptable; the idea that allows unthinking people to spout off “war is hell” as a get-out-of-jail-free card for every evil conceivable to man.

Carpet bombing Dresden; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; fire-bombing Tokyo; napalm; starvation sanctions; drone strikes on wedding parties.  It’s all good because probably at least one person who got it was maybe thinking about doing something really bad in the future.

The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

I agree: war is the issue for libertarians.

Mises Institute: Hooray; Walter Block: ???

Updated below.

The Washington Post recently ran an article covering the political relationship of Ron Paul and his son Rand.  I feel no need to dive into the details of this relationship – agreements, disagreements, etc. – as both I and others have covered this enough in the past.  I have, in any case, decided to rarely comment on Rand any more as I view him as more or less another politician – somewhat better on some issues than most politicians, but not principled and therefore in the end he is no different.

There are two points I do want to cover from this Washington Post story.  First is the coverage of the Mises Institute and their recently held conference in Houston:

HOUSTON — Rand Paul wants to lead the United States. On Saturday in Texas, his father was speaking at a conference about how to leave it.

“A lot of times people think secession, they paint it as an absolute negative,” said former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.). After all, Paul said, the American Revolution was a kind of secession. “You mean we should have been obedient to the king forever? So it’s all in the way you look at it.”

The event was organized by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an Alabama-based think tank named after an Austrian economist whose writings are highly respected by libertarians. Ron Paul is a member of its board.

The article also cited other speakers, including Jeff Deist and Brion McLanahan.

It seems to me rather important that the Institute has such mention in one of the more important rags in the country.  It furthers that the idea that liberty and free-market economics are being taken seriously by those thereby threatened.

My second point regards two comments attributed to Walter Block:

“If I were Ron, and my son were running for president, and we were in the same situation, I would shut up…”

“Ron is a millstone around Rand’s neck…”

I will not comment further on these statements until Block comes out with an explanation – I respect him too much to jump to any conclusion based on statements in the mainstream press (other than…Walter, why do you insist on talking to them?).

All I will say for now regarding these comments: I never want Ron Paul to shut up, and Ron is no millstone to Rand.  This is like saying Murray Rothbard is a millstone to the Mises Institute. 

The issue is legacy and importance to the ultimate cause of freedom.  In this regard, Rand is millstone enough for Rand.

Update: Walter Block has replied here.  I will leave his statements to stand on their own other than to suggest it seems to be playing with fire anytime one uses the words “Ron Paul,” “shut up,” and “millstone” in the same sentence when speaking to a mainstream source (frankly, I am not sure in what audience or in what forum those words even could go together – I wouldn’t even have these words intersect on a Scrabble board). 

No matter the qualifications Block feels he made, should have made or now makes, the risk of uttering these words in close proximity to one another in front of a mainstream reporter is too high – Block’s meaning, even when clarified, is too nuanced for such an audience.

The NY Times Hack Job and Milquetoast Libertarians

By now, most of you are likely aware of the NY Times commentary over the weekend, and especially the jabs taken at the Mises Institute, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell.  Lew Rockwell himself has addressed the issue, with a post cross-published at both Mises and LRC.  Mr. Rockwell wears the criticism, considering the source, as a badge of honor – coming from the home of Krugman, Friedman, and the like, a rational decision on his part.  Robert Wenzel has also addressed the issue at EPJ.

The NYTimes piece has brought out waves of praise from various milquetoast libertarians – those who are working really hard to influence policy in the federal government.  You know the type: “Sure, if we could only get them to listen…and they might even like us!”

The piece revolves around Rand Paul, and the potential of his run for the office of president in 2016.  It seems to offer a template for the positions Rand must distance himself from if he wishes to be taken as credible by the mainstream – in other words, the Times is pointing out the landmines for Rand (perhaps another sign of his acceptability to the mainstream?).  One of the landmines is his father, Ron; another is everything associated with the Mises Institute.  (As I do in pieces where I will discuss this father and son, I must revert to first names to avoid confusion.)

As Rand Paul test-markets a presidential candidacy and tries to broaden his appeal, he is also trying to take libertarianism, an ideology long on the fringes of American politics, into the mainstream.

Of course, Reagan spoke such a language as well (as an actor, much more eloquently than Rand or almost anyone else could) – and followed with…nothing – no reduction in spending, no closing of departments.  Nothing libertarian.  This should offer a clue to the milquetoast libertarians out there…but I get ahead of myself.

In the months since he commanded national attention and bipartisan praise for his 13-hour filibuster against the Obama administration’s drone strike program…

I applauded this filibuster.  Sadly, Rand ended it based on a nothing promise from Holder.

…Mr. Paul has impressed Republican leaders with his staying power, in part because of the stumbles of potential rivals and despite some of his own.

Yes, Mr. Christie.  Those in control must ensure a large enough pool of acceptable suits to fill the chairs in the puppet shows that pass for debates and elections – not that the results of the elections will matter to any significant degree (all roads lead to a larger state).  This should offer another clue as to where I am headed, but again…not yet.

“Senator Paul is a credible national candidate,” said Mitt Romney, who ran for president as the consummate insider in 2012.

Isn’t this one endorsement enough to scare the life out of the milquetoast libertarians? 

In an email, Mr. Romney added that the votes and dollars Mr. Paul would attract from his father’s supporters could help make him “a serious contender for the Republican nomination.”

This will be interesting to watch.  It seems clear to me that Ron Paul attracted the popular attention that he did because of his consistency; because he never wavered on positions regardless of the consequence. It is not at all clear to me that Rand is generating the same fervor.  Rand made a different choice.  We will see if the bulk of his campaign money comes from the same types of individuals / groups that were drawn to Ron, or from the types of individuals and groups that were drawn to Romney.

Now to the crux of the issue, the hack job:

But if Mr. Paul reaps the benefits of his father’s name and history, he also must contend with the burdens of that patrimony.

Ron Paul and Private Property

Private property is all that matters in the context of this passage written by Dr. Paul.  Yet, the Constitution, including all of the amendments, has the term “property” a total of only four times: once in the body, twice in the Fifth Amendment, and once in the subsequent amendments.

The context of the use of the term is either in the protection of government property, or the means by which the government can deprive an individual of property.  In no case is the term “property” explicitly used in the context of a government being formed to protect the private property of the individual.

There are many reasons to criticize the Constitution when one considers the document in the context of libertarian thinking and individual rights (forgive my redundancy).  At its most fundamental, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, I didn’t sign it.  If I didn’t sign it, I am not obliged.

However, if individually presented with the document, is it one worth signing?  It seems to me the only reason I would make this type of pact with my neighbors, one for some form of mutual or community governance, is for protection and defense of my property.

On this basis, the Constitution fails – it does not even contain the words that make it worth signing.

Now it’s the “Austerians”

Isn’t this getting a bit ridiculous?  First it was the “Austro-nihilists,” then it was “Austro-outrageous,” both from Ambrose.  Now, Jeremy Warner has written a column, also at the Telegraph, entitled “Have the austerians won the day, or will the pragmatists prevail?”

Are they mocking us, or is all the attention a sign of respect?

In Warner’s commentary there is so much garbage, junk, distortion, muddled thinking, and efforts of defining the acceptable boundaries of the dialogue…I don’t know where to start, and I won’t know where to stop…but here goes.

He starts right away in the first sentence:

“Ideology is never a good basis for public policy…”

To the extent that there must be this thing called “public policy,” isn’t ideology critical?  Just today, at LRC, is a commentary by Glenn Jacobs exactly on this point, entitled “Compromising Our Liberty.”  Understanding how politicians will act based on a clearly defined ideology is critical if government by law is to be achieved, as opposed to government by man.

We can argue about what’s appropriate, but when economies become destabilised, state intervention is not just warranted, it’s absolutely necessary.

Where is the wonder about the source of the destabilization?  Is it an act of God?  Is it likely or plausible that all bankers and all businessmen suddenly make the same mistakes at the same time?  Why is there never a serious conversation about eliminating the source of this mass insanity?

And why is state intervention necessary?  In our most recent episode, after six years of non-recovery – induced by state-intervention in response to state-caused destabilization – is it not, by now, safe to assume that recovery would have been achieved much sooner had the state done nothing – or, if intervention is desired, by lowering spending and taxes?

Unfortunately, this remains an issue with which many on the Right still have something of a problem, as the debate now raging in the US about who should replace Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve demonstrates.

What “raging” debate about Bernanke’s replacement?  The choice is inflation option A vs. inflation option B.  There is no “right” vs. “left” debate regarding Bernanke’s replacement.  Anyone who understands free markets knows the debate is nothing but show.

Almost nobody on the political “right” views the issue of Fed Chairman as some sort of a “problem.” The political “right,” like the political “left,” is satisfied as long as there is the chair.  The real issue is not the person occupying the seat; the issue is that there is even a chair.  The chair represents central planning, and central planning of the single-most important commodity in a division-of-labor economy: money, and with it the associated credit.

Rand Paul, Better than Most

Posted at EPJ:

Ron Paul, being human, is not perfect.  However, he could be relied on to consistently vote in accordance with the strictest limited-government interpretation of the Constitution.

There are certain positions taken by Rand Paul that are admirable.  I find nothing to fault regarding the filibuster, regardless of what backroom deals may or may not have been involved (Holder’s statement that ended it is another matter).  Rand raised an issue that needed raising, and kept it as the big story for an extended time.  He helped expose many so-called liberals as the hypocrites that they are.

However, he is ultimately a pragmatic politician.  I cannot find a principled core to his statements or his voting.  This is not shocking; it is true for virtually everyone who makes it to Washington.

“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.”

Therefore those who support him are left to trust his judgment – one more brick in the construct of a nation of men, not laws.  Even if you place faith in his judgment, rest assured if and when he achieves any real power, he will not be allowed to exercise it.  Those who believe Rand is just playing the game until he becomes president, in order to then usher in a libertarian age are beyond naïve.  He will be offered as the god-child, Reagan, speaking loudly about the waste of government, but carrying a small stick.

In the meantime, Wenzel is right to use good libertarian theory as the measuring stick.  Someone must do this.  The battle isn’t for Washington DC.  The battle is for ideas.  Ideas, not politics, offer the only hope for lasting change.

This is Ron Paul’s legacy.  It could have been Rand’s.

Ron Paul Dot Com 2.1

This is version 2.1 because it is not a completely new version, but only a clarification of one aspect of my previous post.

I ended my last post on this topic as follows:

I am certain there are many details of the regulatory procedures that I have not captured….I am open to further understanding on this issue.

In reviewing my previous article and some of the links, I found a glaring instance of just such a miss.  It was right under my nose, in an LRC blog post….

ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations.

In that light, I offer the following from ICANN:

Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below. Each provider follows the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as well as its own supplemental rules.

There are four listed dispute-resolution service providers, one of which is WIPO – the provider housed within the UN.  This is counter to what I had previously written:

ICANN has chosen WIPO to adjudicate such disputes.

There is something else from the above-mentioned LRC post:

Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

In my quick review of the four providers, one seems to be US-based, one in Europe, and one in Asia.  The fourth is WIPO. 

Still, this leaves some room for conflict with the language at the ICANN site, which states that claims may be submitted to any provider on the list.  Is it possible that the language at the ICANN site is a general statement, with many devils in the many details?  After all, lawyers and regulators rarely write so clearly and succinctly. Is it possible that it is ICANN and not the claimant that selects the provider, based on factors of the specific claim?  As indicated at LRC, could geography determine?  The statement could be read this way:

Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by ICANN] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below.

Or this way:

Complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy may be submitted [by Claimant] to any approved dispute-resolution service provider listed below.

I have no idea, but this could explain and therefore eliminate the seeming conflict.  It would take someone familiar with such proceedings to clarify this language.  That isn’t me.

As I have mentioned before and will do so again: I have no opinion one way or another about which party will prevail in this issue, nor does it make any difference to me.  I know little about the details of the dispute, and virtually nothing about the law.  I have no desire to get in Ron Paul’s head and figure out why he did this.  My intent has been to answer and remains in answering the following:

1)      What is the process?

2)      Is there some violation of libertarian principle / NAP in Ron Paul’s action?

I am working on a follow-up post.  In this upcoming post, I will summarize some of the discussion that my earlier post generated, including further developing some of my replies.  I will also address some statements made in a Huffington Post article on this subject.  Finally, I will further develop my views regarding UN involvement in this matter.