Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Paul. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Ron Paul, Libertarians, and the Rest of America, Reprise
A much better articulation of my hopes, fears, and misgivings about Ron Paul's candidacy on reason's Hit & Run today.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Ron Paul, Libertarians, and the Rest of America
Right now, Ron Paul is the face for libertarianism in this country (which is ironic if you think about the nature of libertarianism). But nevertheless, when Americans think about libertarianism and libertarians, Ron Paul is who they picture. So I'll admit I'm conflicted over his candidacy.
One the one hand, I think he's weak/naive on foreign policy, a little laissez-faire even for me, and more than a little crazy. And his followers definitely worry me.
One the other hand, there's just something about him. I think I have to agree with Eric N., commenting on Matthew Yglesias' recent Ron Paul posting.
One the one hand, I think he's weak/naive on foreign policy, a little laissez-faire even for me, and more than a little crazy. And his followers definitely worry me.
One the other hand, there's just something about him. I think I have to agree with Eric N., commenting on Matthew Yglesias' recent Ron Paul posting.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
But How Can We Remember You If You Won't Let Us Forget?
So it seems that Guy Fawkes is not going away any time soon. As most everyone knows by now, on Nov. 5, libertarian GOP candidate Ron Paul's supporters launched a money-bomb fundraising campaign, inspired by the image of Fawkes from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta. As Jacob T. Levy (who I just discovered) explains here, this is more than a little weird, and heavily ironic.
I was never a fan of V, mostly because I don't accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter: the definition of terrorism as use of force/violence either against or to cause terror in a civilian/non-combatant population in order to influence state policies is well established, and condemned as a crime by most major moral traditions. Like murder, terrorism is by definition wrong.
Ironically, the premise of the comic makes sense, and, in spite* of the torture, it raises excellent questions about the role of governments, the meaning of patriotism, and the protection of liberty. But all of that is lost on an American audience, and so we end up with a libertarian using a terrorist as a campaign gimmick.
And in light of all of this, I'm doubly glad Washington banned Guy Fawkes Day celebrations- both in protest to the actions of the British monarchy, and also because the alternative seems to be honoring a terrorist.
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
*There can never truthfully be an 'in spite of' with regards to terrorism- once it enters the picture, all moral legitimacy is lost
I was never a fan of V, mostly because I don't accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter: the definition of terrorism as use of force/violence either against or to cause terror in a civilian/non-combatant population in order to influence state policies is well established, and condemned as a crime by most major moral traditions. Like murder, terrorism is by definition wrong.
Ironically, the premise of the comic makes sense, and, in spite* of the torture, it raises excellent questions about the role of governments, the meaning of patriotism, and the protection of liberty. But all of that is lost on an American audience, and so we end up with a libertarian using a terrorist as a campaign gimmick.
And in light of all of this, I'm doubly glad Washington banned Guy Fawkes Day celebrations- both in protest to the actions of the British monarchy, and also because the alternative seems to be honoring a terrorist.
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
*There can never truthfully be an 'in spite of' with regards to terrorism- once it enters the picture, all moral legitimacy is lost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)