Sensible comments, with which I largely agree, from David Boaz of Cato, former VC contributor Jacob Levy, Prof. Steven Horwitz, Prof. Glen Whitman, "Rightwatch", and Tim Sandefur.
The consensus is, basically, that libertarianism needs to more aggressively disassociate itself from right-wing fringe loonies who use libertarianism as a mask to disguise other agendas, or who support libertarianism only because they adhere to some bizarre conspiracy theory or other involving the federal government. Those of us who long ago (as I did) made a decision not to associate with the creepy-paleocons-disguising themselves-as-libertarians in the Lew Rockwell circle--Rockwell being, among other things, the primary suspect as the author of the offensive passages in Ron Paul's newsletters, though he denied it to the New Republic's James Kirchik--need to exert peer pressure on our libertarian friends to follow suit.
Speaking of which, why would otherwise respectable libertarians such as Doug Bandow and Alan Bock write for, and allow themselves to be listed as columnists for, Justin Raimondo's Antiwar.com? Raimondo, one might recall, is best-known for such illuminating commentary as, "If we observe how we were lied into war with Iraq, and by whom, the whole affair looks more like an Israeli covert operation by the day" (and read the whole thing, not to mention his bizarre book, to get the full flavor). Perhaps it's not just elements of the Left that became unhinged by the Iraq War.
UPDATE: The Economist's Democracy in America blog reports:
according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul's newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute. Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America.
Related Posts (on one page):
Because unlike a number of phony self-styled "libertarians", they actually support the non-agression principle?
By associating them with racism and homophobia?
Guess it's all in how one defines "advancement."
What was AIPAC's position on Saddam and his financing of Palestinian suicide bombers anyway?
As for AIPAC, they were against Saddam financing Palestinian suicide bombers. So, I take it, was the entire American military and diplomatic establishment to the extent the issue reached their attention. Was there some sentiment in favor of this financing that AIPAC had to overcome? Or am I ruining your rhetorical tactic of switching between "Israel" and "AIPAC" as if they are one and the same, and implying that they collectively dominate U.S. policymaking?
What was your first clue?
If we invaded Pakistan, I'm sure some people would start blaming the motel lobby.
Should we join with people who support our policy goals (limited government) but for reasons we don't like?
Or should we join with people who claim to share our principles (liberty) but oppose the policies that we consider necessary to enact those principles?
We can have an ideological circle-jerk with people who claim to like liberty but actually support big intrusive government ... or we can work with people who want to limit the size of government, even if their motives for doing so are not admirable.
When it is antisemitism/anti-Zionism, I do think they go about it differently according to their ideological starting points and that they wind up in somewhat different places (e.g., more "racial" and screwball antisemitism on the Right, more "political" and calculated antisemitism on the Left, hence the claimed "anti-Zionist" distinction).
I believe that describes Libertarianism itself.
Well said. Rockwell promotes a consistent libertarian position, including property rights and freedom of association (thus, as with any real libertarian, opposing crucial portions of the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act) and non-aggression in foreign policy. That makes him a "racist", "homophobe", and "kook" in the minds of the politically correct empire builders who inhabit the Beltway area. As does his opposition to the income tax, which would cut off the food source of the Beltway paycheck vampires who dominate the social lives of the Volokh crew.
No suprise at all that Paul and Rockwell are on the receiving ends of these slanders from people claiming the cachet of the label "libertarians" who have imbibed far too much of the Beltway culture to actually be able to remember what liberty is.
To portray this as a Jewish vs. anti-Semite thing reflects some sort of paranoia or slanderous intention. This is a conflict between paycheck earners and paycheck vampires, and between warmongers and cannon fodder, and there are plenty of Jews and Gentiles on both sides.
Actually, when you look at it that way, you might see a clue that there is something wrong with the short-term means being proposed.
Can you give a little bit more of the who, what and where in regards to suspecting Lew Rockwell of writing the offensive passages of Ron Paul's newsletter?
I don't have any inside knowledge of this, but I do remember many years ago seeing solicitations for the "Rockwell Rothbard Report" (or was it Rothbard-Rockwell) that went out their way to apologize for the fact that one of the authors (Rothbard) was a Jew (but a PRO-CHRISTIAN Jew, mind you!)
Better late than never.
1. I oppose the war.
2. I live more than 500 miles away from the beltway
3. I do not work for a government institution or lobby group
4. And I still think the Paul-Rockwell-paleo crowd has done more damage to libertarianism than good.
Sorry to disappoint those who can only respond to David and others by engaging in ad hominems. Not only is that the last resort of those on the losing side, the particulars of the argument don't even apply.
There's nothing in it for me but my commitment to a peaceful, tolerant, and welcoming version of libertarianism.
The academics certainly have their place, but as Prof. Becker wrote: “colleges and universities select for people who are comfortable in a quasi-socialistic working environment. Virtually all colleges and universities in the United States are either public or nonprofit, there is usually salary compression within fields, tenure shields professors from the rigors of labor-market competition, and professorial compensation substitutes fringe benefits (such as tenure), leisure, and other nonpecuniary income for high salaries.” A person from that world just can’t formulate a winning strategy in the ultra-competitive political fray or when they insert themselves into the sausage factory where policy is made. Ron Paul comes along and in a few months advances the libertarian standard more than 10,000 policy papers and blog posts, and the ivory tower's little echo chamber is in bedlam.
Also, Judge Posner wrote, “Despite their formal commitment to open debate, academics, like other people, do not like to be criticized or otherwise challenged.” Paul is not the creedal libertarian the academics like, and so they have to reclaim ownership.
I think that professional bias is more in play than some concern over decades old paper that has been repeatedly rejected by Paul.
Certainly not if he wrote those newsletters!
Ayn Rand was absolutely correct about bigotry. It's completely antithetical to libertarianism. Bigotry views people collectively, rather than individually.
The piece by David Boaz was excellent.
But apparently he didn't write it. Nobody thinks it sounds like him. I heard him repudiate it on Wolf Blitzer. I doubt anybody who has followed Paul over the years thinks it reflects his attitudes, that he is remotely racist.
Then there's something else. There's this goddamned family feud among libertarians that's been going on for many years and long since descended into petty, personal ridicule--the term "nutballs" comes to mind as an example. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Argue substantive issues civilly.
Ron Paul has been elected to Congress time and again on a remarkably consistent libertarian platform. His presidential candidacy is drawing large numbers of liberty supporters into the political process. That's something to celebrate, and like Honyocker I'm cutting him another check.
As for Eric Dondero, he goes around leaving a variety of stick-in-the-eye posts about Ron Paul on various blogs/comment boards. I wouldn't give 2 cents for his speculation on who wrote the offending newsletters or anything else relating to the Paul campaign. Postrel I don't know much about except she favors the war.
Did it ever occur to you that Paul is just the dupe of an neocon conspiracy to marginalize right thinking libertarians and divert their resources harmlessly so they can't affect the real presidential contest?
Really, the Paul supporters here doesn't help libertarianism by acting like cult members. Either you're pure or you're an evil outsider. If you criticize the cult leader, you're an evil outsider.
What has the Libertarian Party accomplished thus far, or any other "Court Libertarian?"
The problem is that the GOP is under the control of conservative respectables. It is painfully obvious that now we have libertarian respectables.
As long as all that strict constitutionalism stuff remained in the rhetorical level and not anywhere close to implementation, all was well and we were tolerated.
By all means, respectability above principle, or accomplishing something.
Ron Paul has advanced libertarianism by introducing more young people to the ideas of libertarianism than any politician in the last 30+ years. (And the number is probably closer to 100+ years.)
He has proved that a candidate running on a libertarian platform can raise some serious money...and virtually all of that in small donations.
And yes, I support Dr. Paul.
Neither does Mr. Raimondo, but he knows that there is a segment of the public that is, shall we say, especially receptive to the charge, whether he has evidence or not, and he's happy to play to that constiuency.
There is no conflict between respectability and principle. Bigotry is not just unrespectable, it goes against libertarian principles, because libertarianism views people as individuals.
Which of Ron Paul's positions is "not so libertarian at all?"
Agree, but when respectability is above principle we get the current GOP establishment.
He is a man who likes the world of the first have of the 19th Century. That overlaps with libertarianism, so he can spin it.
Oh. I guess I didn't think the current GOP establishment had either respectability or principle. ;-) (I guess that's why I was a Libertarian...at least until North Carolina decertified the Libertarian Party.)
The simple fact is that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the states. It is only through the Fourteenth Amendment that the Bill of Rights may apply to the states. And that is a really tough and debatable proposition, since many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute...e.g., the First Amendment's requirement that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
What goes around comes around, I guess.
One thing I've always wondered about Libertarians -- how do they get home? It must hurt to have to drive on those public roads.
Now, one could cobble together an argument that the 14th Amendment rightly understood, doesn't mean incorporation, and "I put the law above my libertarian policy preferences." Except (a) I agree with Randy Barnett that libertarianism should at least somewhat animate constitutional interpretation when straight legan answers are ambiguous and (b) I don't think Ron Paul is any sort of deep legal thinker who could analyze the incorporation doctrine carefully, addressing the various arguments. I think he just prefers states rights to individual rights.
Not if they drive in Boston. It's amazing what $15 billion (much of it federal money) can do, isn't it?
P.S. Oh...I guess they might indeed have been hurt if a ceiling panel fell on their car.
When it comes to generating the politically most effective soundbite, Paul is not in the same league with the leading presidential candidates. Of course, there is little overlap between their impressive talent in that regard and any probability that they would promote liberty and limited government if elected.
"(hint: don't first claim to see all people as individuals, then refer several times to "the blacks")"
It is perfectly legitimate for Paul to point out that he has significant support from blacks, partly due to his opposition to the drug war, which has victimized blacks disproportionately. Similarly, he enjoys significant support from military personnel who are appalled by the Iraq war.
"Any man who thinks the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, thereby enabling them to suppress speech, take property, imprison without rights, cannot have standing as a libertarian, in my book."
Look at Paul's campaign web site. He is absolutely for freedom of speech, property rights, individual rights to the max. The application of the Bill of Rights to the states is a historical, legal question. I think we should go with incorporation, but I can see his point that this is a double-edged sword. When federal courts are empowered to second-guess all state laws, there is an extent to which it undermines the whole concept of a strictly limited federal government, which was, after all, at the core of the Constitution. If a state guesses wrong, there are 49 more to choose from. If the feds guess wrong, there's no escape in this country.
As Paul himself has noted, there's a limit to what he could accomplish as president. He can bring home the troops, pardon non-violent drug offenders, veto spending bills. He can't do anything about incorporation. But if you look at how far strict constitutionalism would take us toward dismantling the welfare-warfare state, sniping at Paul's less-than-pure libertarianism is a prime example of making perfection the enemy of the very good.
Frank, you didn't address this to me, but to me an absolutely key aspect of libertarianism is that governments have to follow The Law. If governments have unlimited power for good, they also have unlimited power for evil. (Because unlimited power is unlimited power.)
The Constitution was set up with the Bill of Rights only applying to the federal government. It can easily be argued that the writers and the legislators who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment had some intention to have the Bill of Rights apply to states (because the southern state governments were continuing to deny rights to blacks that the southern state governments were protecting for whites).
But the problem is that the Bill of Rights is written in such absolute terms. Do you really think it's a good idea that state governments can pass NO law abridging freedom of speech? For example, that would essentially mean that any state laws against slander were unconstitutional. Does that promote libertarianism, to have no laws against deliberately false speech that ruins peoples' reputation?
Well, I don't like to debate anything so nebulous. In general, I think that when legal answers are ambiguous, more attempt should be made to eliminate ambiguity (through historical research and logic). But it would be better, in my opinion, to look at specific instances...such as that free speech issue I just mentioned. Do you really think there should be absolutely NO state laws abridging freedom of speech (e.g. even deliberately false speech that destroys a person's reputation, or cheats a person out of money)?
In my opinion, the Fourteenth Amendment is a mess. It's obvious from reading the history of it (Akhil Reed Amar has done some great work on this, though he's a bit wordy ;-))...that the writers and legislators intended to make at least some of the Bill of Rights as limitations on state governments. But they didn't make it very clear.
I certainly agree that Ron Paul is not any sort of deep legal thinker! (He has actually written that the Constitution contains many references to God...which leads me to wonder if he has actually read the Constitution...or whether his memory is deeply flawed?)
But I think Ron Paul does understand better than most people that it is the federal government that is most dangerous to freedom at present. I certainly agree with him there. With local or state governments, one can at least move out of the locality or state...with the federal government, one must actually leave the country.
Oh, my! I don't think there was ever any doubt that he won't be nominated by the Republicans. (Let alone elected President.)
Mitt Romney Spambots Attack Chat Channels
Well, there's always the Libertarian Party candidate. She or he will be just as libertarian as Ron Paul. He or she won't have Ron Paul's experience in government, but hopefully also won't be associated with any vile published materials.
Nor, though it is more pertinent, do I find it much worth talking about whether Paul's candidacy is a net plus or net minus for libertarianism. I don't find it worth spending much time on because I don't think there's an objective measure to determine the answer.
What I find most important to consider is why racists and homophobes find themselves so comfortable spouting libertarian-like principles. What is it about the idea that an individual should be free to live as he sees fit as long as he does not violate the rights of others that makes it so appealing to racists and misogynists? Does this tell us something about libertarianism, or about the larger society in which we live?
Is it merely that people dismissed and despised by the mainstream tend to find common cause, and libertarians today are as despised and dismissed as are homophobes and racists? Are there lots of homophobes and racists among the Socialist Worker's Party members?
This is especially disturbing as regards the issue of war and peace. With due respect to the Volokh Conspirators, none of whom are historians of intellectual thought, there is a strong link historically between the domestic ideals of civil liberties and limited government and the international ideals of free trade and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That was the real strength of the Paul campaign, to tie once again the ideas of lower taxes and less government domestically with the idea of a non-interventionist foreign policy which has been anathema to both parties since the beginning of the Cold War. Why in particular racists and homophobes find that vision particularly attractive is unclear. But if you're reading the blogs a lot of Paul supporters write in such a way that it becomes obvious why Paul's newsletter attracts them (or at least why they don't find it any big deal, or simply a PC matter).
Strict immigration controls; amending the 14th Amendment to deny birthright citizenship (which is neither libertarian nor constitutionalist!)
Views on SCOTUS decisions that protect individual rights vis-a-vis the states, such as Lawrence v. Texas. IIRC he also introduced legislation to overturn Lawrence.
Emphasis on national sovereignty (ie, opposition to free trade agreements, and obsession with the North American Union) over individual sovereignty
Emphasis on states' rights view of federalism- as many libertarians will be quick to point out, states don't have rights, individuals do. If you have a problem with applying the Bill of Rights against the state, then you are literally saying that those enumerated rights are subservient to the rights of the state. If that argument is simply a legal argument, then fine; but if it is a normative argument as well, then that's quite un-libertarian.
Support of flag-burning amendment.
Support of earmarks
I could probably think of plenty more. But his position on immigration alone should raise red flags- it both seeks to deny individual sovereignty and to limit the labor market.
It's denying birthright citizenship to children of women who entered the country illegally, isn't it?
If birthright citizenship is granted to the children of women who enter the country illegally, it certainly provides a big incentive to enter the country illegally! What do you say to the citizens of the states who have to foot the medical and education bills for those children?
Well, that's a bit of a tough one. One could argue that laws against homosexual sodomy are very similar to what the Fourteenth Amendment was trying to do for blacks in the southern states after the Civil War. *However*, there is also the fact that writers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly didn't have homosexuals in mind, since the states had anti-homosexual-sodomy laws at the time. (I assume. I doubt they were a 20th century invention!) So does one ignore that the writers and signers didn't have homosexuals in mind?
In this particular case, I'd say "Yes." I agree with you, opposition to Lawrence vs Kansas is somewhat unlibertarian. But I'd repeat my caution that giving the Supreme Court unlimited power to do good, also gives them unlimited power to do evil.
No, that's not correct at all. As far as I know, all the state constitutions have bills of rights (in language similar to the federal constitution). So it's not like state governments have no limits to trample on the rights of their citizens. The question is whether the bills of rights in the state constitutions and the laws of the states are protective. When the 14th amendment was passed (and long afterward) it was clear that blacks weren't being equally protected.
But again, just how to implement the 14th amendment is a huge problem. It's possible to have an absolute prohibition against Congress restricting free speech. It's ridiculous to have an absolute prohibition on state legislatures restricting free speech. Again, that would make all state laws against slander unconstitutional.
Ron Paul opposed the Flag Burning Amendment...at least per this webpage:
Ron Paul opposed Flag Burning Amendment
Can you name one person in Congress who has opposed all earmarks (especially all earmarks for his or her district or state)? The man's a libertarian politician...not a saint!
It should be noted that antiwar.com is closely affliated with Rockwell.
It should also be noted that Rockwellians can't debate opponents on the virtues of Paul without jumping to assinine conclusions that one must be a "neocon" or "beltway libertarian" -- the latter term one Rockwell used to attack any libertarian not buying into is Far Right paleoconservative agenda.
Easy answer. Whenever the government intervenes to limit people's rights in a non-libertarian way, it almost always does so in a liberal direction. A libertarian government may be very far from the ideal form of government for a monarchist, a feudalist, a theocrat, a white supremacist, or a fascist. However, from the perspective of a monarchist, a feudalist, a theocrat, a white supremacist or a fascist (or anyone having fringe views of any sort on what is the best form of government) it makes more sense to support a libertarian government than the politically correct welfare state that nearly all Republicans or Democrats consider to be the right form of government.
I also met a guy who said the NH results were fixed, that Obama's mother is now running CFR office in Chicago and have proof positive that David Rockefeller had portions of the Congressional record that he disagreed with excised. This guy fit right in with the guy who advised not to use ZIP Codes, because that causes you to "be under Federal Authority" and the head of the local John Birch Society.
The funniest part was when the CFR-conspiracy kook was trying to explain to the guy from Armenia how David Rockefeller and his band of International bankers had been working in concert with the old USSR.
Pretty sure I am not going back to any more meet-ups.
Well, that leaves all these people without another friend:
It would be a shame if the reasonable people came to Ron Paul meet-ups, and found a majority of wackos, and so wrote off libertarianism as simply a collection of wacky people.
I don't think Paul is opposed to immigration, but there is a problem with large numbers of people coming across the southern border illegally and having access to tax-based social services. It's especially problematic in states like Texas where Paul lives. Ideally you wouldn't have the welfare state, government schools, etc, and borders wouldn't much matter, but that's not where we are. As for amending the Constitution: there is a Constitutional mechanism for doing so.
"Emphasis on states' rights view of federalism- as many libertarians will be quick to point out, states don't have rights, individuals do."
Under the rubric of the Constitution, governments have POWERS. The feds have a few enumerated powers; states have the rest of the powers of government. People have rights. "States rights" is a very unfortunate misuse of terminology, but the substantive point--that the federal govt is limited and state governments are otherwise sovereign within their borders--is simply a fact about how the Constitution was written. The Constitution is not anarcho-capitalist, but obedience to it would take us a long way in the right direction.
"Support of earmarks"
As I understand it, if a spending bill is passed and Paul has not requested earmarks, it will not decrease federal spending by $1. The money will have been appropriated. Someone else will decide how to spend it, probably not in Paul's district. Nor will Paul's constituents get a refund of any of their federal taxes. Requesting the earmarks is a way for them to get a little of their money back. Paul votes against the spending bills, but his vote is not enough to prevent their passage. If you had enough Ron Pauls in Congress, there would be no earmarks. By analogy, I'm opposed to Social Security, but I'm not a hypocrite if, having been forced to pay into the system all these years, I do cash the checks when I retire.
It's a fall-back position for them. Where they can get control of government, they use it to impose their will. Where government goes against them, they retreat behind their right to individual liberty. The ACLU (properly) defends freedom of speech for Klansmen and Nazis, but I doubt there'd be free speech if those elements got into power.
I had been involved in Libertarian Politics back in the early 90s and ran for county level offices. My big issues were opposing the County purchase of an existing golf course, opposition to a new "Open Space Tax", eminent domain abuses and political patronage (each member of the county board Rep and Dem alike had a spouse also drawing a county salary).
One of my running mates was a Bircher. Voters that I had convinced to vote for me, donate money and volunteer, backed out once they found out about this running mate. One of his supporters showed me the map the UN was going to use to divide up the US into 10 zones of control.
I got tired of banging my head against the wall and dropped out of political activism. I thought maybe things had changed and that's why I went to the meet-up. Between the newsletters and my experience, I now know they haven't changed.
Nick
And American Patriot replied, "Easy answer. Whenever the government intervenes to limit people's rights in a non-libertarian way, it almost always does so in a liberal direction. A libertarian government may be very far from the ideal form of government for a monarchist, a feudalist, a theocrat, a white supremacist, or a fascist. However, from the perspective of a monarchist, a feudalist, a theocrat, a white supremacist or a fascist (or anyone having fringe views of any sort on what is the best form of government) it makes more sense to support a libertarian government than the politically correct welfare state that nearly all Republicans or Democrats consider to be the right form of government."
First, I've read this response, verbatim, several times on the web in the last few days, so either the American Patriot gets around a lot and prefers cut&paste to rephrasing his arguments, or this is a "standard response line" being put out.
Second, it makes absolutely no sense. A theocrat, a feudalist, a monarchist all want and need a powerful central state. The idea a theocrat would prefer to wither away the state to a night-watchman level or smaller simply because the current leviathan is not theocratic, rather than try to take over and modify the current state makes no logical sense and has no historical precedent. Are the current red-state Evangelicals calling for drastically limiting government to combat secularism? No, they are trying to get "their guy" elected so he can wield the power of the state as they would prefer. This "answer" does not begin to address my question.
Ron Paul has introduced more young people to libertarianism than anybody since Ayn Rand, but in a much shorter period of time than Rand. Granted, the Internet and its many young tech-savvy people that gravitate towards liberty had a lot to do with this. The ability of libertarians to route around the beltway-dominated mass media had a lot to do with this. And Lew Rockwell's excellent web site had much to do with this.
Imagine how much more quickly and widely Rand's circle would have spread its influence if it had been part of an Internet community rather than a tight social clique that could only publish a few books and newsletters to the outside world? Sigh...
Alas, today's libertarian intellects outside of Rockwell and a few more obscure souls are too enmeshed in beltway and mass media culture to drive any anti-beltway change. Indeed, as we have just seen with the simultanous anti-Paul posts by beltway "libertarians" on the very day of the New Hampshire primary, some of them have become an important part of the anti-libertarian political propaganda of the beltway.
Anybody with any actual sympathy with liberty would at least have had the decency to wait until the New Hampshire polls closed before starting the long discussion that is needed between old and new libertarians about the import of Paul's tawdry old newsletters. But no, the beltway "libertarians" had to outrace the mass media in spreading the smears ASAP, so that voters could be immediately spun by the smears. Paul plunged from 14% in the polls to 8% in the actual vote. Now our beltway "libertarians" can brag to their paycheck vampire friends that they helped deny delegates to Paul. Thus they can avoid being tarnished by the "kookiness" of libertarianism -- nominally by its "racism" and "homophobia", but actually by its hoped-for consequence of throwing most of these paycheck vampires out of their federal jobs and making them get real ones.
"The idea a theocrat would prefer to wither away the state to a night-watchman level or smaller simply because the current leviathan is not theocratic, rather than try to take over and modify the current state makes no logical sense and has no historical precedent. Are the current red-state Evangelicals calling for drastically limiting government to combat secularism? "
But the current red-state Evangelicals are NOT theocrats. They are within the political mainstream and do not want to completely transform society like the fringe groups that I listed as having an incentive to support libertarian candidates. Theocrats in American society are the likes of the Christian Reconstructionists (Gary North, Rushdoony, etc.), who want to completely transform society to make it work in accordance with Biblical law. Unlike mainstream religious conservatives like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell, the Christian Reconstructionists do in fact support Ron Paul and often work with libertarian groups like the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Formerbeltwaywonk responded:
But what is even more amazing is that Ron Paul is a politician. And a federal politician, to boot! It's one thing for a private citizen to say the federal government should have less power. It's much more impressive for a federal politician to say so.
Ron Paul has obviously screwed up, big-time. But no one should claim that he hasn't also done significant good for libertarianism. It's less clear what the net balance is.
Mostly just in the minds of the insider wankers. In fact, he has done a great favor to the budding immune system of liberty by bringing the statist smear campaigners out of the closet in the new Internet age. Formerly the feds succeeded in these kinds of smears. Their lies about constitutional government types like the John Birch Society, for example, are now part of the consensus official history. But their attacks against uppity libertarians like Paul are now archived on the Internet and leave an unalterable trail which indicate exactly who said what and when. I no longer have to read history as written by their dishonest minds, I can Google it for myself. They can't rewrite history as they did with the reputation of the John Birch Society. The Birchers were in their time the strongest campaigners against bureaucracy. But they didn't have the Internet with which to defend their reputations. Instead the lies and smears of the mass media and the insiders have become the history "everybody knows".
The statists are playing out of a playbook that is evolving slower than the dinosaurs. The same charges they brought against the Birchers forty years ago are now being thrown at Paul -- those paleolibs are racist just like the Nazis, etc. The only thing they have added is to smear Paul by calling him a Bircher, which "everybody knows" now is such an awful thing to have been!
Hopefully this time the lovers of liberty will be able to use the Internet to preserve the truth against these statist liars.