On Socialism and Ron Paul: Two Timely Essays for Lovers of Liberty

A quick-hit double-link in the form of two recent essays I recommend as timely and relevant reading for thoughtful lovers of liberty:

  • “The Welfare State and the Meaning of Life” by Greg Forster, whose work I have come to know through his excellent research and analysis of school choice issues, but in this case makes a strong moral case against socialism
  • “Ron Paul’s Secession Lies on Video” by libertarian lawyer and thinker Tim Sandefur, a college classmate of mine who delivers a remedial lesson in United States history and the Constitution to the Congressman and former presidential candidate … It’s one thing to speak up loudly against federal overreaches and for a renewed respect of the 10th Amendment, it’s quite another to call for unilateral secession from the Union (There is one sentence in Sandefur’s essay that I must disparage: Find it, and earn yourself a few bonus points)

Lovers of liberty need to be articulate and discerning, especially in these critical times.

Comments

  1. says

    Ah, yes, Timothy Sandefur, the libertarian centralist (!? – does he square the circle too?) “Lincoln Fellow” at the Claremon(s)t(er) Institute. Gee, what a surprise that he would write such stuff about Ron Paul’s views.

    (Wink.)

    Your readers, if they don’t already know, should be advised that Sandefur’s latest is merely part of an ongoing debate between two schools of thought, one represented by outfits such as Claremont and the other by the paleolibertarians associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lewrockwell.com. Below are three representative links to responses to Sandefur.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella12.html

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/002152.html

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/006166.asp

    And the beat goes on. We may very well see a response from this camp to Sandefur’s 4/22 blog entry, which is little more than a big fat argument from silence, combined with a highly selective approach to the evidence, combined with specious arguments about the people vs. the state and revolution vs. secession. Sandefur merely builds upon fictions developed by early centralists (the Federalists, mainly) but which were given modern shape by Lincoln and his Republicans. Which of course lead to the death of federalism. While the 10th-Amendment resolution movement seemingly give hope to those who want to see the old federalism restored, I’m guessing that Rome on the Potomac will turn an eternally deaf ear to it all.

    Which is why secession will likely one day be necessary.

  2. says

    Please pardon me if I observe that the arguments contained in the links you cited are underwhelming compared to Sandefur’s in depth, substance, coherence, and documentation. But I’ll let readers compare and judge for themselves.

  3. says

    “Please pardon me if I observe that the arguments contained in the links you cited are underwhelming compared to Sandefur’s in depth, substance, coherence, and documentation.”

    And please pardon me if I observe that the response above is a mere assertion without specifics.

  4. says

    Currently unable to go in depth, I will recommend for the time being that readers for their edification go back and compare the links for themselves. Yes, it is an assertion, as – ironically – is your comment above.

  5. S Jones says

    “Currently unable to go in depth, I will recommend for the time being that readers for their edification go back and compare the links for themselves. Yes, it is an assertion, as – ironically – is your comment above.”

    Quite understandable. This is a rapidly sinking comments box discussion, and like you I am currently unable to expand on what I wrote here, even though I promised to do so by several days ago:

    http://coloradoconfederatarian.squarespace.com/journal/2009/4/25/anti-secessionist-timothy-sandefur-pops-off-his-math-agin.html

    But I do plan to get to it. And when I do, I’llshow *why* Sandefur’s argument is one largely from silence, how he’s selective when it comes to the evidence, etc., although much of what I’ll have to say has already been said in my responses to Claremont fellow Richard Reeb. (Search “Reeb” at my site to see the lenghty exchange between him and me – which is not yet done.)

    But I hear you, Ben. We’re all busied by many things. And besides, you and most of your fellow pseudo-conservatives are too preoccupied with trying to figure out how to re-empower a bankrupt GOP to be concerned with the First Things being debated by Paul and Sandefur.

    Regardless, the “S” word won’t be suppressed any longer. It’s on an increasing number of American lips. The only question is whether or not those who oppose the concept will be able to sustain a compelling argument against it.

  6. says

    My life has plenty of good cheer and laughter … you telling a quiet, laid-back soul like myself to chill out just gave me a little bit more. Sometimes I write & post about non-political things, but they’re not the primary purpose of this outlet. Why don’t I post (more) musical videos? Why don’t you post (more) about sports and your family? Why don’t you post a series about 20 things you’re thankful for?

    I appreciate your concern for my well-being, but it would come across a lot more sincerely (and be received accordingly) if I knew you personally? Otherwise, it sounds oddly patronizing.

Leave a Reply