Purism is Practical

[Brian4Liberty]

Purism is Practical
Written by Ron Paul - Sunday January 3, 2016

Those who advocate ending, instead of reforming, the welfare-warfare state are often accused of being “impractical.” Some of the harshest criticisms come from libertarians who claim that advocates of “purism” forgo opportunities to make real progress toward restoring liberty. These critics fail to grasp the numerous reasons why it is crucial for libertarians to consistently and vigorously advance the purist position.

First, and most important, those who know the truth have a moral obligation to speak the truth. People who understand the need for drastic changes in foreign, domestic, and, especially, monetary policy should not pretend that a little tinkering will fix our problems. Those who do so are just as guilty of lying to the public as is a promise-breaking politician. Attempting to advance liberty by lying is not just immoral; it is also a flawed strategy that is doomed to fail.

The inevitable failure of “reforms” that do not eliminate the market distortions caused by government intervention will be used to discredit both the freedom philosophy and its advocates. The result will be increased support for more welfare, more warfare, and more fiat money. Thus, those who avoid discussing the root causes of our problems, not those they smear as impractical purists, are the ones undermining liberty.

For example, many Obamacare opponents refuse to advocate for true free-market health care. Instead, they propose various forms of “Obamacare lite.” By ceding the premise that government should play a major role in health care, proponents of Obamacare lite strengthen the position of those who say the way to fix Obamacare is by giving government more power. Thus, Obamacare lite supporters are inadvertently advancing the cause of socialized medicine. The only way to ensure that Obamacare is not replaced by something worse is to unapologetically promote true free-market health care.

This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions. However, we must only settle for compromises that actually move us in the right direction. So we should reject a compromise budget that “only” increases spending by 80 percent. In contrast, a budget that actually reduces spending by 20 percent would be a positive step forward.

Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position. This can actually increase the likelihood of taking real, if small, steps toward liberty. More importantly, the best way to ensure that we never achieve real liberty is for libertarians to shy away from making the case for the free society.

Sometimes ideological movements are able to turn yesterday’s “fringe” ideas into today’s “mainstream” position. Just a few years ago it was inconceivable that a significant number of states would legalize medical, and even recreational, marijuana or that a majority of states would have passed laws allowing citizens to openly carry firearms. The success of these issues is not due to sudden changes in public opinion, but to years of hard work by principled advocates and activists.

The ever-growing number of Americans who are joining the liberty movement are not interested in “reforming” the welfare-warfare state. They also have no interest in “fixing" the Federal Reserve via “rules-based” monetary policy. Instead, this movement is dedicated to auditing, then ending, the Fed and stopping the government from trying to run the economy, run the world, and run our lives. If this movement refuses to compromise its principles, we may succeed in restoring a society of liberty, peace, and prosperity in our lifetimes.

Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-is-practical/

[The Gold Standard]

I doubt most of the current users of this place ever visit Ron's forum, but I can imagine how well this would go over with most of them.

[Ronin Truth]

Thanks Ron! I figured you'd understand, and "get it".

[Occam's Banana]

Those who advocate ending, instead of reforming, the welfare-warfare state are often accused of being “impractical.” Some of the harshest criticisms come from libertarians who claim that advocates of “purism” forgo opportunities to make real progress toward restoring liberty. These critics fail to grasp the numerous reasons why it is crucial for libertarians to consistently and vigorously advance the purist position.

[...]

This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions. However, we must only settle for compromises that actually move us in the right direction. So we should reject a compromise budget that “only” increases spending by 80 percent. In contrast, a budget that actually reduces spending by 20 percent would be a positive step forward.

Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position. This can actually increase the likelihood of taking real, if small, steps toward liberty. More importantly, the best way to ensure that we never achieve real liberty is for libertarians to shy away from making the case for the free society.

[...]

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct:

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position." -- Ron Paul

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions." -- Ron Paul

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

[Ronin Truth]

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

Any time you're ready to start, go for it.

[Indy Vidual]

"If this movement refuses to compromise its principles, we may succeed in restoring a society of liberty, peace, and prosperity in our lifetimes."
Can we see more results really soon, please?

[Occam's Banana]

Any time you're ready to start, go for it.

Start what? (Or is this just more empty heckling from the peanut gallery ... ?)

[Henry Rogue]

Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position.

Ron Paul

[puppetmaster]

Rand Paul supports this also.

[twomp]

mmmmm..... I love me some Ron Paul! There will only be 1 Ron Paul.

[Ronin Truth]

Start what? (Or is this just more empty heckling from the peanut gallery ... ?)

Fixing the world the Ron Paul way.

[staerker]

I think Ron just called Cruz a fake conservative.

[Occam's Banana]

Any time you're ready to start, go for it.

Start what? (Or is this just more empty heckling from the peanut gallery ... ?)

Fixing the world the Ron Paul way.

No one said anything about "fixing the world" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Ron certainly didn't, and neither did I.

So, the peanut gallery it is, then ...

[Ronin Truth]

No one said anything about "fixing the world" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Ron certainly didn't, and neither did I.

So, the peanut gallery it is, then ...

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

[Occam's Banana]

No one said anything about "fixing the world" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Ron certainly didn't, and neither did I.

So, the peanut gallery it is, then ...

[snip repost of post #4]

And? I merely agreed with, repeated and emphasized what Ron said, regarding which you remarked:

Thanks Ron! I figured you'd understand, and "get it".

If you're thankful that Ron "understands and gets it," then why - other than that you just get off on being a contrary ass - are you mocking what he said and making cracks about "fixing the world the Ron Paul way" (whatever you imagine that is supposed to mean)?

[Ronin Truth]

And? I merely agreed with, repeated and emphasized what Ron said, regarding which you remarked:


If you're thankful that Ron "understands and gets it," then why - other than that you just get off on being a contrary ass - are you mocking what he said and making cracks about "fixing the world the Ron Paul way" (whatever you imagine that is supposed to mean)?

Ron says I'm practical. So there.

[wizardwatson]

Attempting to advance liberty by lying is not just immoral; it is also a flawed strategy that is doomed to fail.

This was really my only ever major gripe with Rand Paul. I believe this statement 100% and applies to politicians first and foremost. Glad to hear it come out of Ron's mouth. I admit to being nit-picky with Rand, not as of late, but earlier in the year on this account. I feel that some of his earlier talking points and compromise positions fell dangerously close to essentially lying.

Of course, even if Rand lied 50% of the time, which he certainly doesn't, I've always maintained that he's still would have reputation beyond repute compared to his counterparts running for office.

There are numerous times on this forum where people have essentially said that "you have to lie to the people in order to win and get the power, then you can change things" which goes against this idea.

So I'm glad to hear (as usual) Ron speak that "purism is practical" because there's still a lot of people around that disagree with this. Maintaining the rhetoric of purism is not only practical but necessary in my opinion to maintain credibility in a movement which is based on it.

[CCTelander]

Bump for current relevence and serious need.

[Swordsmyth]

Purism is practical but it must work in concert with pragmatism.

[timosman]

[CCTelander]

Purism is practical but it must work in concert with pragmatism.

You know, I know a LOT of "purists" and not a single one of them would object to this. NOT ONE.

On the other hand, I've met very few realists/pragmatists who don't immediately resort to denigrating "purists" as "Utopian dreamers" who need to "wake up to reality and get with the program" when the "purist" objects to anything the realist advocates or anyone they support on moral or principled grounds. I've also met very few realists/pragmatists who don't also regularly blame "purists" for the lack of progress toward liberty, and wish they'd just STFU or leave, or both.

Interesting.

[Swordsmyth]

You know, I know a LOT of "purists" and not a single one of them would object to this. NOT ONE.

On the other hand, I've met very few realists/pragmatists who don't immediately resort to denigrating "purists" as "Utopian dreamers" who need to "wake up to reality and get with the program" when the "purist" objects to anything the realist advocates or anyone they support on moral or principled grounds. I've also met very few realists/pragmatists who don't also regularly blame "purists" for the lack of progress toward liberty, and wish they'd just STFU or leave, or both.

Interesting.

I'd say the same in reverse.

[CCTelander]

I'd say the same in reverse.

"I know you are but what am I?"

[Swordsmyth]

"I know you are but what am I?"

I can't help it if you project.

[CCTelander]

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct ...

"Those who advocate a so-called extreme position can often move the center of political debate closer to the pure libertarian position ..."

By definition, any compromise will always be a reconciliation between extremes (where an "extreme" is the full set of whatever a given side of a compromise actually wants, as distinct from what that side will actually be able to get). If gradualist reformers are to be effective, then for any reformative compromise to significantly skew our way, gradualist reformers must be "backstopped" by those who are willing and able to be more vocally absolutist and radical. Otherwise, the "spectrum of possibility" (so to speak) will be foreshortened, and gradualist reformism (rather than absolutist radicalism) will be the "extreme" upon which any compromise will be erected (to the dissatisfaction and disappointment of both gradualist reformers and absolutist radicals).

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures ..."

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

Excellent post. +rep

[acptulsa]

"I know you are but what am I?"

You just summarized 47,306 of his posts.

[CCTelander]

You just summarized 47,306 of his posts.

Wow! I didn't realize I was THAT good! ROTFL!

[acptulsa]

Wow! I didn't realize I was THAT good! ROTFL!

47,307

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...77#post6868177

[CCTelander]

47,307

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...77#post6868177

He's on fire!

[acptulsa]

He's on fire!

We should do something. Want to pee on him?