The Revolution

Among the Republican candidates for president, two stood out for being different: Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes sounded more like he'd forgotten to take his medication, and certainly somebody I want as far away from the Oval Office as possible (Maybe they could give him a padded Oval Office). Ron Paul on the other hand, though some certainly thought he was nuts, was consistent and honest in his views. The remaining candidates, in my opinion, seemed indistinguishable from each other. Ron Paul represented what can be called the true essence of republicanism, if there were such a thing: Small Government, Non-interventionist, and Liberty as the core belief.

I often referred to Ron Paul as the Al Sharpton of the Republican Party. He had little chance of getting the nomination and he was unbelievably honest in his views. The comparison ends there. Though Paul had virtually no chance to win the Republican nomination, he was hard to ignore. He raised an unbelievable amount of money and garnered news attention. He challenged his fellow Republicans on the core issues of freedom and liberty, and questioned the Iraq war. The other Republicans could not ignore him, despite the fact that he was a long-shot. His candidacy was a revolution and this book brings the philosophy of libertarianism to the people.

Revolution, as it states in the title, it is a Manifesto. It's a Manifesto for freedom. Paul starts with the constitution and the founding fathers. Paul asserts the importance of understanding the intent of the founders. I've initially found this concept antiquated. We don't live in the past, but the present and things change. We will see things through different eyes with different experience. I still feel that way in general, but Paul makes a good case for turning back to the intent of the founders. While the idea may seem antiquated, knowing the intent of the founders give the constitution its meaning. Not knowing the spirit in which it was written reduces the value the document has. If we can interpret the Constitution however we see fit, then it does us know good. It might as well be blank. I think this is an excellent point, because having a constitution is central to the mission of the US. A key quote is:
Once we lose our respect for the Constitution and begin interpreting it so that it happens to permit our pet programs, we have no right to be surprised when our political opponents come along with their own ideas for interpreting the Constitution loosely.
It's like reading an ancient document and not know the culture in which it was written.

Paul is a devotee of the Austrian school of economics, as he demonstrates in his book. The Austrian school's star economists were FA Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. The school of thought is based on pure economic freedom, what some might call Capital Anarchy. It's an idea where just about anything goes economically speaking. The government is in place to make the basic rules, but other than that people can act as they see fit. When it comes to freedoms, economic freedoms are essential. Without the right to earn money and spend money as you choose, there is not real freedom. Just looking at the difference between the mobility of the rich and poor, and it's easy to see the importance of economic freedom. Resources, money, are essential in exercising our personal freedoms.

Paul hits our personal freedoms and civil liberties. We often fall into the trap of saying "There should be a law against that" when we face annoyances. I remember in high-school a teacher imploring students to avoid that phrase. There might be somebody fool enough to make such a law and the consequences might be more severe than the annoyances. This is especially important when we consider some of the federal legislation that's been put in place. The PATRIOT Act comes to mind. Republicans were all for it because their guy was in the White House. Now that Obama is in there and it's likely the Republicans might find some of the application of the laws. Of course the Democrats have complained about it, but now that their guy is in office they might not think it's such a bad idea, see the quote above. It's especially interesting when Paul discusses the outlawing of pot since it came largely from racism. One of the legislators in favor of outlawing used "Crazy Mexicans" as evidence that pot was dangerous. The laws passed, despite of evidence that the substance posed not major health hazard.

Revolution was a good read. It's not an evidence based book, so it's weak in that area. Since that's not the intent of the book, that's not that big of a deal to me. I think it is a starting point for folks to become acquainted with the philosophy and ideology and at least re-think some of their positions. On the downside, I think many readers will find the book to be an end point to their philosophy rather than a starting point. It's a good read, especially if you're unfamiliar with libertarianism.