So the fact that Ron Paul entitled his book The Revolution: A Manifesto tells me he’s started believing his own press and is also more than a little tipsy from drinking his own Kool-Aid. The title is certainly grandiose for what the book actually (disappointingly) delivers. It’s really just the typical campaign drivel from a typical campaign book. Très très bourgeoise and oh so NOT revolutionary. And let me hasten to add– I’m a man of Libertarian, even Anarchist, sympathies –just kidding, NSA internet-trolling computers :) haha!
The Revolution is by no means some anarchist’s cookbook instructing we-the-people on how precisely we should go about waging war to overthrow the central government of the United States Of America. Neither does it try very hard to prove its case that a revolution is even desirable. Instead, it tosses off the usual banal ballyhoo about freedom that is the standard issue snot incessantly dripping from the intrusive noses of both major U.S. parties.
Case in point: Paul thusly quotes Robert A. Taft’s ringing and high-sounding sermon on what he means when he means Liberty, boys!:
“Liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing.”
Hot dog, does that sound awesome! Sign me up. But hold on… by what avenue will we arrive at heaven’s gate and pass-on through to this garden of liberty? Is it really so simple as decapitating government from the belly up?
Will every locality really be able to choose its educational scheme if most of the community has no money for education because they are all laboring for the local, unchecked aristocrats? Is it a secret that for most of human history, we have had what many people would call “less government” than today—and that for most of human history, a good education has been a luxury afforded only by the privileged few?
And tell me, would each community really be able to determine how its local services shall be administered under a system of family-run monopolies such as those which have ruled with unyielding authority over ninety-nine percent of localities throughout history’s chicken run of homegrown despots?
And explain to me, please, how a man may choose his occupation if he lives in a region dominated by a local ruling class that discriminates against him at his every turn and in every market and every pursuit— at every educational level, at every internship or apprenticeship, at every job interview or application procedure?
And what sort of choices will this occupation-choosing person be faced with if the working man has no protections against being forced to take employment in life-taking, lung-destroying, skin-cancering, ear-deafening, finger-and-limb severing, and otherwise toxic workplace conditions? Shall I even need mention the rampant sexual harassment and manifold exploitations that have dominated the workplace for most of the time that humankind has stood upright? And certainly “bring your child to work” day would have a whole different connotation in this revolutionary “new” era containing no child labor laws?
Do I hear some you say that the free market would take care of these injustices? That business owners would have to compete for employees and thus, only the most benevolent bosses would be able to hire help? Oh my friend, if you believe that one, then not only have you never read a history book, or listened to the oral history of even two generations before us— but I have some prime oceanfront real estate to sell you in Iowa.
It should be no secret to anyone that during most of the dirty pageant of so-called civilization, local egos have tyrannized their own people when unchecked by teethy laws that are fairly and strenuously enforced by unbiased and unbought officials.
And what about this “liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run?” Shall we take away government and instigate instead the lawless time of the mobster, when local businesses had to pay protection money to the neighborhood gangster– basically a modern day warlord– or else have his bones broken and his place of business burnt?
And will a man even be able to have a business to run when he lives in a community full of obstacles thrown up by local strongmen in order to keep away competition from their entrenched interests? And if this business owner does manage to receive tacit permission for opening-up shop, will he be able to run his business as he thinks it ought to be run when the local good ol’ boys club has ostracized him?
But it is the last quoted phrase of the honorable Mister Taft that most undercuts this entire notion that– if only we did not have this satanic government above us– a pacific and pleasurable paradise would envelop us like a pink and perfumed cloud; Taft says a man can have all these wonderful liberties “as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing.”
Yes… Indeed… But once we “revolutionaries” have overthrown the government, who will stop the monied inheritors, the hereditary landlords, and the immoral brutes of every neighborhood from interfering with all of our precious theoretical “rights” to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness? Will it be the modern day equivalent of all those local militias that sprang-up throughout history to unselfishly give their lives and livelihoods so that those weaker or worse off than themselves could partake of every delicacy offered by human society?—
Oh wait… that never happened.