Libertarian

In a classic case of missing the point to strike a righteous pose, this:

Twice in two days now, I’ve come across news articles using the term “Big Brother” to refer to private sector information practices that affect privacy. Big Brother is not an appropriate shorthand here. In his book 1984, George Orwell gave the name “Big Brother” to the oppressive government that observed and controlled the lives of the book’s protagonists. The unique oppressive powers of this governmental entity were a central motif of the book.

Jim Harper, of the Technology Liberation Front, a pseudo-libertarian tech blog opposing Net Neutrality, points out that George Orwell's dystopic 1984 was about Communism, and therefore using the Big Brother phrase in the context of corporate invasions of privacy is inappropriate, thus rendering specious, apparently, such perspectives.

This misses the point, though, doesn't it? After all, what was the primary difference between the totalitarian control of Communism in the Soviet Union and the totalitarian control of Fascism in Nazi Germany? In the latter, corporations collaborated and cooperated with the government in exercising power over the people.

Perhaps it might be safe to assume that Mr. Harper would not appreciate life under Fascism, either, where claiming it was "Big Brother" would be technically incorrect, but pretty much describe otherwise the same result for the citizens.

The important distinction, I submit, is not between Communism and Fascism, but between authoritarian and totalitarian trends and values vs. privacy and choice and liberty and even the pursuit of happiness by the people.

Ironic how people proclaiming "liberation" keep excusing and rationalizing and apologizing for anti-competitive, government-protected corporate power.

Next we're going to hear how wonderful it would be to have government-financed but purely non-government corporate mercenary forces like Blackwater ruling the streets of America. After all, it wouldn't be "Big Brother," would it?

The party of Barry Goldwater is dead.

Via Captain's Quarters:

It's their community, of course, and they set the rules. However, this doesn't hurt Paul's credibility as much as it does Redstate's. While Paul's supporters tend towards the annoying and repetitive, they have less impact because we can easily engage them and counter their arguments. Banning them simply for their support for a candidate seems more like an admission that Redstate lacks that ability.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

Having been to the CLC, I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them.

Yes, the small-government advocates should be tolerated in the party of neo-fascism. Dismiss their arguments for fiscal responsibility.

Even though Ron Paul is a social conservative, as ready to invite Big Brother into the livingrooms and bedrooms of Americans as any gold-star Republican, his name is mud in mainstream Republican circles.

Why?

Maybe follow the money. This is the new face of conservatism.

(P.S. - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, either. Far be it! But compared to all the other Republican candidates, he's a fucking saint!)