I’ve always had a inkling that I didn’t like RP — didn’t really know why but I think you may have clarify it for me.

Anywho, thanks a lot for the insightful post!

Aside from that point, though, which he really doesn’t develop that thoroughly anyway, I like his notion that freedom is essentially an “empty signifier” that takes on meaning from a political context. It should raise warning signs, though, when Paul says that others are merely “wrong” in their definition of freedom. Of course, at this point he goes on to say how he is “right”, and that is where he makes huge logical jumps.

He makes the accurate point that all government action is coercive, and then jumps from that position to one that says that freedom can be obtained through the minimal application of government. It is a basic point in political theory that government, or sovereignty, is always coercive. Otherwise there is no structure of hierarchy that we would be able to call government in the first place.

This essay by Ron Paul is insightful because it is indicative of the limitations of right-wing libertarian politics. They claim that “freedom” is maximized by the minimization of government, but they know that they can only do so by turning their heads to the kinds of societal structures that maintain inequalities in society, along lines of race, gender and class for example.

I think that what his stance fundamentally does is to say, “hey, we’re all in favor of people improving themselves!” which justifies a political program that turns a blind eye towards all sorts of abuses and inequalities in society. Basically, it ends up keeping the rich, white elite in power by denying that there are societal structures that something like government would have to work against if it really were in favor of people being able to grow and express their own voice in the face of oppression.

Fundamentally, we should recognize that government isn’t the only structure of authority in society that limits freedom. Corporations increasingly fashion subjects in society to be better consumers. The only reason for the “science” of marketing is to fuel expanding markets by fashioning consumer tastes.

Ron Paul and his campaign try to get us to ignore this by filling the “empty signifier” of freedom with their own agenda that fundamentally says, “hands off, government” (and implies that we must let capitalists and businesses take over). Is this campaign really a fundamental change from the last few administrations in the US? It seems to me to be a strengthening of the business-as-usual politics of neoliberal economics and globalizatoin which have gotten us to such a fantastic state of affairs so far.

Thank you for your link to this article. It helped me to solidify the reasons that I really am skeptical of this movement towards Paul’s politics that are, in my (strengthened opinion after reading this article), naive and misguided.