Fishing through my gMail garbage the other day, I came across a post that one of my anarchist antagonists had forwarded to a list that I used to run. It contained a link to an article written by Per Bylund, an anarchist that I’ve had occasion to spar with in the past.
Apparently Mr. Bylund has a problem with Ron Paul. I think that’s a major selling point in Dr. Paul’s favor, myself. Here’s a quote from the piece, located here:
The major problem lies in the effect Ron Paul has on the people already identifying with or being part of the libertarian movement. Many libertarians seem to have set their libertarian projects aside in order to work for Ron Paul. They not only work for his presidential campaign, but seem to adopt his views – even anti-libertarian views such as Paul’s stand on abortion and increased border control. Arguing Ron Paul’s case to the general public as well as to the members of the GOP, they take a few steps toward statism (while the opposite would be both better and more honest, considering their libertarian values) – and come to believe in it.
Calling a minarchist a statist as he does in the article, is an insult to anyone who understands the basic principle “power abhors a vacuum”. As I noted previously Mr. Bylund is engaged in propagandizing, and radically oversimplifies what it means to be libertarian, and what libertarians believe. I’m not going to bother going over all that again. Suffice it to say, Methinks [he] doth protest too much.
The Anarchist segment of the ‘libertarian movement’ has been whining about the influx of new people virtually since the name libertarian was coined; and they will continue to whine every time someone dares to make progress, gains popularity, and attracts new people to the ‘movement’. They’d like to impose a litmus test on all new members, just to make sure their views are libertarian enough, before they can call themselves libertarian (am I the only one who sees the irony in this?) and some of them would be quite happy to keep their quiet little debating society to themselves.
For my part, I welcome anyone who wants to make room for freedom in this country again. I’m glad that the Anarchists have a problem with Ron Paul. I hope they get mad, take their toys, and go home. Maybe they’ll finally give up their stranglehold on the Libertarian Party (loosely affiliated with libertarianism in general) and let it have the breathing room necessary to effect the kind of change that Ron Paul had to go outside of the LP to accomplish. Which is the saddest statement of all.
Calling Ron Paul a statist is putting him under the same label as Hitlery (most likely our next president. The press has already nominated her) and her openly socialist agenda. It’s laughable, like most anarchist theory is.
Victor Bozzo wrote:
Abolition is the answer…
There will never be an abolition of government, because self-government is still government.
I don’t need listen to or read anything else relating to anarchism. It’s a false philosophy based on redefinition of words to mean something other than commonly accepted meanings (as in a social structure that we don’t call government, but serves the same purpose. Pointless) From where I’m sitting it’s no better than last centuries lying socialists that claimed a better world for those who followed, but in fact was just another way to hand government power over to those who don’t currently hold it, but wish to.
More on that subject when I get finished listening to my Rothbard mp3s, and I get the chance to write my blog entries on the subject of the Anarchist Fallacy and the Problem with Anarcho-Capitalism.
Suffice it to say that I’m willing to ride on the bus with anarchists till we get to the Minarchist stop, but I’m not putting up with any more holier-than-thou anarchist bullshit; especially anarchists that aren’t willing to do actual work in getting to smaller government.
(and by work, I mean more than just listening to Alex Jones)