Tim Lee challenges my critique of Ron Paul, pointing out that “There’s absolutely nothing contradictory about saying that the constitution permits states to enact some statist policy...but that one doesn’t think that policy should be enacted.” I agree with this statement; in fact, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that the Constitution of the United States is not a perfectly libertarian document, and it allows government to do things which are not justifiable on grounds on political philosophy. However, any libertarian who appeals to federalism ought, I think, make it clear that he thinks that while states have constitutional authority to do wrong things, that those things are nevertheless wrong. This Paul does not do.
In fact, Paul has given us good reason to believe that he thinks states ought to do things that are indefensible, including sending armed state thugs into private bedrooms, or censoring freedom of speech, or denying women the right to an abortion. (Actually, on this latter point, as I’ve said, Paul is not a federalist: he would impose a nationwide regime of abortion prohibition.) With regard to flag burning, as I’ve shown, Paul would “enthusiastically support” legislation to allow the state of Texas to prohibit flag burning. He has said that the states should be able to “establish [their] own standards for private sexual conduct”—that is to say, that they should be able to legally punish private, adult, consensual sexual activity. This is different than saying that the Constitution leaves such matters to the states, but that states have no legitimate right to do such things. The latter is a libertarian federalist position. Paul’s view, by contrast, is a paleo-conservative, state’s rights authoritarian position. It is the view that if states want to oppress people, there’s nothing wrong with that. And that is not libertarianism, even if it is federalism (which I also don’t think it is, but that’s an argument for another day).
And I would have no problem at all with Congress passing a non-binding resolution encouraging people to eat less: it’s entirely within their power to do so under the Constitution, and there is nothing about it that deprives people of their liberty. I see no sensible objection to such a thing. The case of supporting democracy activists overseas is even more obviously constitutional; Lee thinks it’s none of Congress’ business if we eat well and get exercise, but certainly it is Congress’ business to make clear America’s positions on matters of international politics.
Update: To be as precise as possible, it is true, as Lee says, that libertarianism is about the proper role of the state. It holds that certain roles are simply not proper for the state. Paul holds that it is proper for the state to intrude on what he himself calls “fundamental liberties.” Therefore, his position, while it may be a federalist position (i.e., the state has constitutional authority to violate fundamental liberties), is not a libertarian position (i.e., for any government to do such things is improper because no government, state or federal, should violate these rights). Once you concede that it is proper for the state to choose to violate individual rights, you have abandoned libertarianism. One who says, for example, that voters in a territory have the legitimate authority to implement slavery, may be a federalist, but by no means could he be described as a libertarian, because he has conceded that a state may make a choice (slavery) which a libertarian view of government would automatically rule out-of-bounds.
Comments policy