Ron Paul is No Thoreau

There is a contradiction in a campaign that champions objectivism and yet supports a document which is inherently anti-objectivist.

A lot has been written about Ron Paul’s connection to the philosophy of Thoreau, my favorite example being this video. A Google Search returns about 58 thousand entries, equating elements of Thoreau’s philosophy with the promises of the Paul campaign. Thoreau’s individualist ideology is often thrown in with Thomas Paine’s “That government is best which governs least,” but at the heart of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is an argument against the early strict-constituional government.

How does the Ron Paul following reconcile their individualist philosophy, which cites Thoreau extensively, with their support of returning to a strict-constructionism government, a government Thoreau rallied against and opposed vehemently?

Let’s compare the beliefs of the two men. From Paul’s website:

He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Civil Disobedience, Thoreau’s most influential political work, is at it’s core an argument against the early US government, and indeed, the Constitution. Thoreau writes…

I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it.

And an even more damning rejection of Paul’s Constitution pandering:

They who know no purer source of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage to its fountainhead.


Civil Disobedience is not an argument for the Ron Paul campaign. As long as Paul supporters continue to promote a return to strict-constructionism, Thoreau will not be by their side. Ron Paul’s pro-Constituion message will do nothing to solve the ills of the tyranny of the majority that Thoreau was arguing against.

Now, can we stop dirtying Thoreau’s name? Can we stop blindly worshiping the Constitution and seriously consider the dangerous effects of a return to strict-constructionism?