Can anyone shed some light on this?

Dear Anonymous:

You continue to accuse me of misrepresenting or not understanding Paul's positions. You selectively quote from my postings. What I've continued to say (and what you refuse to acknowledge) is that he's a committed libertarian. Why do you run from this and all that it connotes?

So please, get real. When Paul says that the states should take over, he's really saying that the states should be given the right to do nothing at all (just as southern politicians of the 50's and 60's argued for states rights to avoid federal civil rights legislation). So I fear it is you that doesn't fully understand the meaning of Paul's libertarianism.

You call for returning to the constitution. I suppose that means adopting the "originalist" philosophy of Scalia and Thomas whereby the constitution is seen as a static document only to be read as it was understood by the founding fathers (an understanding which, by the way, would be impossible even if it was desirable). For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has rejected this hidebound and unworkable approach and fleshed out what terms like "due process" mean because no statute can possibly anticipate all of the situations where such a definition will be needed.

As to who I'm supporting for president, it'll probably be Hillary. However, who I'll support is irrelevant to whether libertarianism makes any sense.

I don't think I've mis-represented R. Paul at all. I've only taken him at his word. He is quite open about being a libertarian.

The fact that he speaks of letting the states handle certain areas does not impress me or change my opinion. Historically those who advocated "leaving it to the states" have been those who advocated doing nothing. (Think back to the 60's and the civil rights struggle. "States rights" meant leaving the states alone to discriminate as they pleased.)

Bolew, I agree that force is an ambiguous term. That is exactly why laws are required to flesh out what a violation of one's property rights is and why some type of enforcement mechanism is needed. The libertarian utopia simply can't work. Much as the communist utopia, it isn't based on what we know humans to be but on what we wish they were.

I'm afraid that what I said about Libertarianism was essentially correct. Read how Charles Murray describes it:

"Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to his life in any way he chooses so long as he or she respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the Libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves uses force-actions like murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping and fraud."
-- Charles Murray, author, What it Means to Be a Libertarian

You see, Anonymous, Libertarianism really does stand for leaving individuals to slug it out between themselves (peacefully in theory) without intervention from the state. Laws on the environment, worker safety etc. that I have talked about would be seen as infringements on the individual's rights. It's really that simple.

Dear Anonymous:

Here's what I originally wrote about Ron Paul:

"Put simply, libertarianism proposes that the government should get out of virtually every aspect of our lives. It shouldn't tax us to build roads, help the poor, sick or elderly and should make no effort to manage the economy. Libertarians place individual rights above all others, including society at large, arguing that if people simply take care of themselves and (if so inclined) worry about issues like poverty and global warming at their pleasure, things will work out just fine. The free market is the cure-all."

"I think Ron Paul supporters need to understand that what he proposes is a return to a Hobbesian world where it's every man for himself. He proposes that somehow, the free market will deal with poverty, health and global warming better than the government can. His supporters should look to see if there's ANY historical basis for such a belief. Once they do so, they'll inevitably come to the conclusion that there is none. "

Please tell me where the "lie" is.

As to your suggestion that worker safety or the environment will be dealt with better by the states or individuals, I've asked and never received from you the historical basis for such a belief. Indeed, no one seriously believes that the environment was better before the EPA or that workers were safer when the Feds had no role in worker safety. You're living in dreamland if you think that the government isn't needed to stop powerful corporations from polluting or endangering worker safety.

The fact that one economist (even Milton Friedman) out of thousands proposed abolition of the Fed does not mean it isn't a fringe position. By "fringe" I mean an opinion held by very few professionals in the field of economics.

Actually, I've taken multiple economics courses and majored in history. But thanks for the advice. One can always brush up however.

The Fed was created in response to the "Panic of 1907". If I'm not mistaken, we were still on the gold standard at that time. So clearly, the gold standard alone is not a solution. But I'll continue to keep an open mind on the subject.

What you all are missing about Ron Paul is that the Federal Reserve is only ONE of his targets. He wants to abolish virtually any federal program not specifically called for in the constitution. This is a much bigger concern for anyone, like me, who wants to progress on the environment, civil rights and economic inequality. You all need to fess up to this and address it.

Dear Anonymous and Falcon:

Neither one of you has addressed how matters like worker safety, the environment, social security and civil rights would be addressed nationally in your Paulian utopia. It's not enough to rail about the flaws of the present system, you need to propose an alternative that could work. In my view, these are NATIONAL problems. Turning it over to a patchwork of state law would be a disaster and completely ineffectual. (Are you old enough to remember the state of civil rights in the US before the Feds got involved? Do you remember what the rivers of the US looked like before the Clean Water Act?)

As to abolishing the Federal Reserve, that's a fringe position that few on the right or left advocate. And what's the alternative, returning to the old days of multiple currencies throughout the country? Returning to the old days of runs on the bank? Like it or not, the present system has proved far more stable than the system that preceded it. Having said that, unlike anonymous, I'm willing to listen to the arguments.

Libertarianism is an ideology just like all of the isms that made such a mess of the last century. Like Anonymous who says "I for one am happy to be closed minded" its adherents are unwilling to be dissuaded by facts that get in the way.

Anonymous:

I'm sorry you don't want to "openly debate" Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy. Given that it's the central pillar of his campaign, I think it should be debated. Proponents such as yourself should be ready and eager to do so.

The fact is, that during the Great Depression, unemployment reached 24%. We've seen nothing even CLOSE to that since the federal government began actively managing the economy. The dot-com bubble and sub-prime debacles are NOTHING in comparison.

As to social security, sure there are problems that need to be sorted out. But no one seriously disputes that it is needed and that it has alleviated poverty, especially among the old and poor.

Oh, and of course, what about civil rights? Do you seriously believe that we should have left Alabama and Mississippi to decide who could vote or eat in a restaurant?

And what about worker safety? Should we leave it to South Carolina to cut all safety regulations to the detriment of states that do care about worker safety?

If you're going to actively promote a candidate on a website, I think you need to be able to counter my arguments. (And if you don't believe my facts, feel free to show me that they're wrong.)

You say that I can't change your mind. (I assume you mean that no matter what facts I bring to you that undermine libertarianism.) Is close-mindedness also part of Ron Paul's message?

Dear Anonymous:

Were it only so simple.

Of course there are examples of federal AND state programs that have been either flawed or outright failures. And the fact that the feds sometimes fail does not mean that the states can address the problems more effectively. But let's look at history. Prior to the federal programs set up during the New Deal, our economy swung wildly, between boom and bust.

Read up on the depressions of 1873, 1893 and the crash of 1927. Only through federal intervention and Keynsian economics, were we able to avoid the mass unemployment and disruption that previously plagued our business cycle. The states individually could not have done anything to manage the national economy.

Look at social security and medicare. These programs reduced poverty dramatically. It was only through a national approach that this happened. I could go on. Look at what the EPA has been able to accomplish. These are national problems that require national solutions.

The old states rights approach that you propose was a complete failure when it came to civil rights, workers safety etc. etc. And for a very simple reason. Left to their own devices, not all states will protect the environment or worker safety and will "race to the bottom" to attract corporate investment -- a problem we have now and would only be made worse by less federal involvement.

More important than the machinations of Fox News or internet fund raising is Ron Paul's philosophy. He's a passionate and committed libertarian. I fear that many people who rightly seek a fresh, straight-talking candidate who is against the war have overlooked this fact.

Put simply, libertarianism proposes that the government should get out of virtually every aspect of our lives. It shouldn't tax us to build roads, help the poor, sick or elderly and should make no effort to manage the economy. Libertarians place individual rights above all others, including society at large, arguing that if people simply take care of themselves and (if so inclined) worry about issues like poverty and global warming at their pleasure, things will work out just fine. The free market is the cure-all.

I think Ron Paul supporters need to understand that what he proposes is a return to a Hobbesian world where it's every man for himself. He proposes that somehow, the free market will deal with poverty, health and global warming better than the government can. His supporters should look to see if there's ANY historical basis for such a belief. Once they do so, they'll inevitably come to the conclusion that there is none.

I finally relented and agreed to try this place, whatever its name is. The first impression was a MOLDY smell that overcomes you as you walk in (I just noticed that someone else in this thread smelled it too). Then, we were seated at a table with paper liberally spotted with grease. When we asked for new paper, they gave us another greasy paper. We walked out before ordering.

Amiya's butter chicken is to die for.

Finally tried O'Connell's last week. First off, the place felt forgotten with tables arranged sparsely and not lots of customers. It took one of the waitresses some time to seat us. Our waiter, a nice but inarticulate young man, warned me off the burger as "nothing to rave about" and said that the Shepherd's Pie was too big. In spite of his admonition, I ordered the Pie, since it was one of the only affordable things on the menu. My wife ordered a steak (28 bucks!). The Shepherd's Pie was mostly potato with a thin membrane of chopped meat underneath. It was, indeed, large however. My wife's steak was fine but way too expensive.

My advice to O'Connell's: lower your prices by a third and focus on classic pub food, and do it well.