Ron Paul is an simplistic authoritarian; Why ‘Conservative Libertarian’ is an OxymoronPosted: January 26, 2012
“you know the only real difference between you and me” a member of the British conservative party said to me, at the tail end of a long argument about the drug trade, “is rhetorical, we both think government is a bad thing, we’re essentially on the same side”. This attitude, that somehow conservatism is the real rebellious ideology, (an attitude articulated by Stephen Moffat in the 1990s sitcom Coupling) is something that has always annoyed me, but I suppose it – physiologically at least – explains how organizations such Conservative Future and The Young Republicans exist, as I have no idea why someone under the age of Thirty would consider the status quo fine.
When I lived in England this was less annoying because young British conservatives are very obvious and no one except other conservatives seriously believe they stand for anything other than retarding humanity’s progress in any shape or form and are rightly apologetic for their political opinions, as the British conservative spends most of their late teens and early twenties morphing from socially secluded and inept, into patronizing,disingenuous penny pinching bastards. Since coming to America however two things have started to worry me; the first is that the American conservative movement is significantly more self confident, this is probably the result of being sheltered from Angry protesters and websites awaiting the demise of their patron saint being socially acceptable in a significant part of the country whilst enjoying what must be a reassuring ring of aggrandizing merchandise, this is damaging for it’s own obvious reasons but the most terrifying thing about the American Conservative movement, and particularly the “libertarian” strand is that as an English anarchist, I sound like a member.
The notion that I might sound like a Ron Paulite Tea Partyer floated into my mind a few times, specifically at Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally which I accidentally attended whilst touring Washington DC, where a Tea Party Activist yelled at me
“Hey Buddie. Wanna join the movement to fire congress?”
As an Anarchist that annoyed me, this man clearly wanted people to vote for conservative candidates but was framing it as a revolutionary act, and anyway demanding a termination of legislative bodies is our thing. A much more disturbing example of this happened when I was explaining to an acquaintance that all governments will ever do is violently impose their will on people around them, this was then met with a nod and the otherwise sensible gentleman telling that I was right, and that was why he was voting Ron Paul, as Small government was close enough to an anarchic state as one could realistically get. This man had made the same mistake the young conservative had made, there is a crucial difference between anarchists and “Libertarian” conservatives; when Anarchists say they want people to run their own lives we mean it.
There is no such thing as “Small government” every government reserves the right to kill you, to imprison you, to tax you and to regulate where you can and can’t go; denying you access to medicine and education will not make you freer, it will make you more susceptible to OmniCorp’s cyborg police or Ryan Industries’ Big Daddies. The More a state is prepared to give you the more worried by you it tends to be, there is revolutionary potential in the wake of reforms; terrified, sickly idiots don’t tend to start revolutions that end well. The state making life harder for individuals wont make them more likely to revolt, they will make them focus their next paycheck and little else. In a capitalist system more regulations regarding the boss’ practice in the workplace – a thing anarchists at the start of the twentieth century where fighting for – is the beginning of people fighting their way toward more control over their lives not less. In a world with few or vague rules, and a capitalist super structure; the man with the army will win, and the majority of individuals will loose. The Aim of Ron Paul, his equally simplistic sniveling son, and anyone who follows them is not to give power back to you, unless “You” are a company or corporation. there will be no devolution of power to the individual, there will be a horizontal transference of power from elected officials to unelected C.E.Os. Liberty has to mean that individuals are in hoc to no one; the very fact that apparent libertarians advocate Capitalism – a system based on control of resources which in turn leads to control of individuals – shows their paradoxical and disingenuous nature.
This harnessing of Anarchist sentiments to establish a stronger state is not new in the Conservative movement, but the ‘libertarians’ piss me off the most because so many people – both their allies and detractors – seem to have bought the “Ron Paul Just wants everything to be hang loose” line, seemingly without much thought and allowed the man to abuse the words “Liberty” and “freedom” to the extent that they now mean “Government by Shareholder”. He, and the other idiots who think “Who is John Gault” is a profound question need to evaluate why they support an idea whose soul outcome will mean more control buy a ever decreasing circle of individuals, or start explaining why they think serfdom is a good idea. Either way; fuck off our stuff.