Why Ron Paul Matters

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, Michael Gerson opines that Ron Paul’s statements in the South Carolina GOP debate amounts to a philosophy that …

…is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.

Gerson’s take here is framed from Paul’s statements supporting the decriminalization of vice, notably prostitution and drugs like heroin and cocaine. In a broader swipe at libertarianism in general, Gerson offers this:

But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.

Never have I seen a more shallow description of libertarianism, which is a rich matrix of personal responsibility and limited government. These faulty definitions gloss over the fact that libertarians offer solutions to society’s problem, different solutions. I don’t agree with every single one of them as doable options, but I agree with almost all of them in principle. I’d guess many Americans do too, they just don’t know it. It’s difficult for most of us to look outside the parameters of the two party system. Plus, we’re so far away from the founding principles of this nation, any political philosophy adhering to them quickly is bound to be considered radical, as Gerson offers here. It’s a shame, really.

I’d argue that big government is the “arrogance of the strong” that shows great “contempt for the vulnerable and suffering” by throwing addicts in jail, keeping poor people on welfare, exploiting racial divides, punishing citizens for meaningless traffic violations, preying on the minds of our young people by promoting political agendas in public education that convince the next generation of Americans that global warming is killing the planet, and, finally, that big government is the answer to all our problems.

Will hordes of people immediately begin shooting up if legal restrictions on drugs are lifted, and will these people throw themselves down a destructive spiral of failure if not checked by law? In Paul’s view, even if they did, society would treat the problem in a moral an ethical way by facilitating recovery for the individuals who are willing to help themselves. If some people don’t want help, well, that’s up to them. Where is it the government’s place to step in and say “no” to what amounts to an individual choice that can be carried out in the privacy of one’s home?

Just as the problems of poverty are still with us, so is drug abuse. Therefore, efforts to “solve” each problem via the “Great Society” and the “War on Drugs” are utter failures. Conservatives should be the first ones to oppose the war on drugs, as others have argued.

Gerson’s view sees government as necessary to restrict citizens beyond a concern for basic liberty in order to maintain the general moral order. The alternative view is that law exists to check government and protect basic liberty.

What Gerson seems to miss in his professed concern for America’s addicts is that under the current philosophy of punishing drug use, the user not only suffers the medical, social, and professional consequences of addiction, but often the legal ramifications as well. There is no better example of “contempt for the suffering” than the status quo regarding drug use. Gerson’s entire premise here is that personal responsibility is not something we should expect from people unless the government is there as a threat to their liberty.

If we make a “collateral damage” argument concerning drug use, that families are ruined, and drug paraphernalia is left in city parks for children to find, couldn’t we make the same argument concerning any other personal choice that has a detrimental affect on another individual? How about a workaholic father or mother who neglects family, causing a divorce? Should we throw that person in prison? What about people who drive cars? Are they not responsible for children breathing in toxic fumes all day long? How about the damage caused by automobile accidents? Moreover, regarding the idea that the abuse of one’s body must be prevented by law, the obvious: what about alcoholics or people who eat their way to obesity? Should we throw them in jail too?

The logic restricting certain personal choices is anything but consistent. Restricting individual choice equals less liberty, whether its drugs or the type of insurance or automobiles available to consumers. It all falls under the same umbrella. Those on the Right who promote moral restraints on personal, non-coercive choices via the force of law (such as drug usage laws) have in one sense become indistinguishable from those on the Left who promote restrictions on liberty via environmental regulations and Obama Care.

Paul asked “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would.”, to which Gerson concludes:

Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict’s voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.” Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.

Paul was mocking the addicts of big government, not heroin. He was mocking liberals and the alleged “conservative” reactionaries who for the better part of five decades have promoted a moral nanny state. Many of these same people have, of course, gone on to embrace aspects of the economic nanny state that they claim to oppose: the idea of government as an instrument of social change instead of a neutral framework to maintain a fair system for people to pursue maximum liberty. Many folks are failing to see much of a difference between the Right and Left big government drones; sadly, the line is blurring more than ever.

This phenomenon is easy to understand. As our popular culture and politics was largely taken over by Left during the 50s and 60s, the response by many on the Right was to embrace federal power as a way to hold on to traditional morals and defeat the Left. By doing so, they began to resemble that which they despised.

As Barry Goldwater stated so eloquently in 1964:

Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

It’s a shame that many conservatives in this country have strayed from this bedrock philosophy to the point where they deride a guy like Ron Paul, the person in the GOP who comes closest, in many ways, to the spirit of the founding fathers.

We are lucky to have Ron Paul in the discussion. To dismiss him is to dismiss liberty.