Why Not Ron Paul?

Well, for me it's a simple question: I agree with him about very little. Indeed, even though I agree with him about the war in Iraq, I don't actually agree with his broad vision of foreign policy. There's just very little there to like. But for Megan things are different:

Ron Paul has some beliefs that I like, such as his opposition to eminent domain abuse. But he also has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one; the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another. Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."

These seem like worries to have once it becomes reasonable to think that Ron Paul might become president. That's not the case right now. If you're as dyspeptic about both political parties as Megan claims to be it seems to me that a protest vote for Ron Paul on a Libertarian Party line would be the best thing to do. The reason libertarians don't like either political party, is that nobody feels like catering to a fringe ideology with almost no supporters. David Boaz and David Kirby claim there's a large "libertarian vote" but the proof would be in the pudding. Paul's not going to be president, so one doesn't need to worry about whether or not he'd be a good president. The question is whether or not there's any constituency for a platform of massively rolling back the government's activities both at home and abroad -- votes for Paul will prove its existence if it's out there, and then major parties featuring plausible political leaders will move in that direction.

Photo by Flickr user Jayel Aheram used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

If you're as dyspeptic about both political parties as Megan claims to be

That's where you're going off the rails. She isn'tdyspeptic about both political parties. She's a Republican and always has been.

Posted by apostropher | December 20, 2007 1:06 PM

"These seem like worries to have once it becomes reasonable to think that Ron Paul might become president. That's not the case right now."

An odd way to put it.

That's like responding to someone who worries about the effects on the air traffic control system of pigs flying by saying that pigs aren't able to fly right now.

"Right now" implies "perhaps tomorrow" in a way that isn't applicable to pigs flying or President Paul

Posted by Petey | December 20, 2007 1:10 PM

"Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When you get down to it a lot of foreigners are scary. Would you walk through a bazaar in Kabul or Ramadi and not wonder if it might be your last day on the planet? How about a stroll down Main Street somewhere in Chechnya? Care to have tea in the slums of Sao Paulo or Rio?

Posted by steve duncan | December 20, 2007 1:19 PM

The question is whether or not there's any constituency for a platform of massively rolling back the government's activities both at home and abroad -- votes for Paul will prove its existence if it's out there

Why? And conversely why wouldn't votes for Paul prove the non-existance of such a platform?

Of course, some people certainly support Paul because they perceive that is his platform, but on what green earth is being anti-abortion part of a platform of massively rolling back government activities: pace conservatives who are "pro-life" yet complain about the massive invasion of privacy involved in filling out a tax form (and telling the gummint everything about what you make), you cannot enforce any abortion law without massive government intrusion. For instance, if the government doesn't know you're pregnant, how can the government determine that there has been an abortion?

If you really believe abortion is murder and should be rooted out in the same way we try to pursue even potentially wrongful deaths of out-of-the-uterus people, then that would require a massive amount of government intrusion to track every missed period, etc. I guess that's a fair enough position, but you can't claim that you think abortion is murder and then claim you want limitted government: if you have certain beliefs, whether they involve wanting gummint to pay for health care or wanting gummint to protect the rights of the unborn, you are in favor of massive government ... and ya can't get around it.

Ron Paul is in favor of massive government as much as liberals (fascists according to the Doughy-Pantload) like you or I are. Nu? To deny this is being fundamentally dishonest, and ultimately Goldberg-esque, ain't it?

Posted by DAS | December 20, 2007 1:20 PM

Since, to me, all the Republican candidates are deeply flawed in some way or other, Paul doesn't seem particularly bad or even particularly wacky. So, if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to vote for a Republican, Paul would be my choice. But this just means that my opinion doesn't matter-- in particular, I'd happily vote for any Democrat over any Republican.

Posted by MattF | December 20, 2007 1:22 PM

Of course, there are a few things about the NAFTA bit that Megan doesn't seem to have considered, such as:

1. The fact that on his recent tour, VicenteFox promoted that concept at least three times.
2. A Zbig/Kissinger-associated group recently testified to Congress on the benefits of such a scheme.
3. The CFR and others have published papers promoting the scheme.
4. There are frigging maps on Canadian websites showing the NAFTASuperhighway which we're told doesn't exist, and they even promoted that under a different name in a recent gov speech.

The best thing you can do for yourself is to watch this video and compare what Bush/Harper said vs. the speech mentioned in #4: youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

I strongly suggest watching that video.

I also have posts about this issue here.

Posted by TLB | December 20, 2007 1:31 PM

You just wrote this post for the blog hits didn't you, Matt?

Posted by R. Totale | December 20, 2007 1:34 PM

I love these facts I keep seeing more and more of:

"Paul's not going to be president"

Tell us who will then. Make it interesting.

Posted by notaserf | December 20, 2007 1:39 PM

Dr. Paul's belief in the NAU conspiracy theory is certainly one of several things about him that prevents me from becoming one of the fanatical Paulites that have characterized his online popularity. His anti-abortion position is another, and I don't really understand the whole gold standard thing. But I think Megan makes the same mistake here that other critics of Paul have made: confusing non-interventionism with isolationism. Ron Paul is not Pat Buchanan. He does not believe in an impregnable Fortress America. He does not want to curb even legal immigration. He supports free trade, though disagreeing with the Washington Consensus and the President's fast-track policy (I imagine he'd find much to agree with in Naomi Klein's "Disaster Capitalism"). He's the only candidate I've heard endorse ending the anachronistic Cuban embargo. Like Obama, he's unafraid to sit down and talk with foreign leaders like Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, whose opposition to American imperialism is mistaken for hatred of America itself. These don't appear to be the policies of a xenophobe.

I'll be voting for Paul in the Washington state primary on Feb. 19, and then probably vote for the Democrat in November.

Posted by Dustin | December 20, 2007 1:41 PM

The more Ron Paul injects nutty ideas into it creates more opportunities to denounce those nutty ideas. I say bring on Ron Paul and the gold standard. In the unlikely event of his getting the GOP nomination, the Democratic candidate can give an updated version of William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech. Thats regarded as the great American political speech, but until some fool tried to bring back the gold standard, it’s useless.

Can’t you just see Obama or Edwards?

“You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!”

Posted by TheCraig | December 20, 2007 2:03 PM

The main reason to support Ron Paul is his stated goal of rolling back the government's continuing (and outrageous) infringement of our civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc. No other candidate, even Chris Dodd, supports the return of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Constitution to the extent that Paul does.

This issue is, to me anyway, so important that it trumps all other issues. In fact, from a certain standpoint, it renders all other issues moot. (For example, what good is a woman's right to have an abortion if the government has the power to covertly kidnap her and hold her indefinitely without charge, without access to an attorney or the courts, etc?)

I understand that Ron Paul will not be president. However, in my view his position on civil liberties, and the things he would do as president to restore them, would make him a good president despite what other negative things he might do while in office.

Posted by hiphoplawyer | December 20, 2007 2:08 PM

you can't claim that you think abortion is murder and then claim you want limitted government

Paul may have been somewhat inconsistent on this, but to be fair, his insistence on limited government is an insistence on a limited Federal government (which is where the President works, after all). As I understand it, his position is that the anti-abortion laws and their enforcement should be a state matter.

Posted by Herschel | December 20, 2007 2:08 PM

Matt,

Careful, or you're in danger of becoming a concern troll. I enjoy reading your stuff, but no one is going to mistake you for a libertarian sympathizer, and it makes your helpful suggestions a little difficult to swallow.

Imagine Megan suggested that you should consider voting for Kucinich - after all, he's in favor of universal healthcare and withdrawal from Iraq. Don't worry about the Dept. of Peace or the alien invasion. It's not like he has a chance at the nomination.

Would you be convinced?

Posted by heedless | December 20, 2007 2:12 PM

"Indeed, even though I agree with him about the war in Iraq, I don't actually agree with his broad vision of foreign policy. There's just very little there to like."

Why do you say that? I disagree with Paul on many things, but in a world with no Soviet Union, why does the US have to try to dominate every country on the planet? Do you really believe we should go around bombing and invading other countries "for their own good?"

Posted by mad6798j | December 20, 2007 2:19 PM

I think people underestimate the degree to which Ron Paul's support is based on his demeanor. He comes accross as an unscripted, straight talker. I would hazard that a majority of the folks who have donated their $50 on average to his campaign did it for this reason, and for his Iraq position. I don't think the average supporter has looked at the details of his positions on abortion, decimating the federal government, etc.

The frustrating thing about libertarians like Paul is that the good points - anti-interventionism, anti-drug war, pro-civil liberties, etc, - actually do in my opinion have relatively broad if not majority support. But they always come bundled with stuff about dismantling the good stuff government does from entitlements to environmental regulations.

If a third party ever came along that combined the "Government out of iraq, my bedroom, my phone line, my stash" good stuff with traditional active government liberalism - "Government give me cheap quality health insurance, and strong energy and environmental regulations" it'd be a shoo in.
-J

Posted by John I | December 20, 2007 2:23 PM

As I understand it, his position is that the anti-abortion laws and their enforcement should be a state matter.

Your understanding is incorrect, though understandable, since Paul is doing his level best to obscure his record on it during this campaign. The author of the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 cannot with a straight face say that he intends to leave that decision to the states.

Posted by apostropher | December 20, 2007 2:50 PM

Your understanding is incorrect

Nothing in the article you link to and nothing in the summary of the "Sanctity of Life" legislation that I've read contradicts my understanding at all. In fact, they more or less restate what I said. Perhaps you need to read them. Let me hasten to add that I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, and if a particular one of his loopy proposals were to be put into effect I'd be out of a job.

Posted by Herschel | December 20, 2007 3:02 PM

If one defines, at the federal level, life to exist at the moment of conception, then how a state gets to allow murder is a very tricky legal concept. This is what I mean by he's doing his best to obscure what his position really is.

Posted by apostropher | December 20, 2007 3:05 PM

From the detailed summary of the "Sanctity of Life" bill:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

I suppose if this were to become law, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment would empower the Federal government to force the states to protect "unborn children", although on the other hand this kind of definition of a term ("person") importantly used in the Constitution would seem to be beyond the scope of simple legislation, or at least I would expect a Libertarian to take that view -- although obviously Paul doesn't take that view. I mentioned inconsistency in my first comment.

At any rate, as odious as you or I might find Ron Paul's views on abortion, from what I've read it really is fair to say that he favors anti-abortion laws and their enforcement at the state level. I suppose he would have to favor a Federal anti-abortion law for where I live, in the Federal city.

Posted by Herschel | December 20, 2007 3:17 PM

Right. I didn't intend to aim snark in your direction, though it probably read that way. Apologies. I just don't trust Paul's "I'd just leave that up to the states" assurances at all on an issue he believes is the greatest moral issue of modern times and which he equates with Naziism.

Posted by apostropher | December 20, 2007 3:31 PM

Why Not Ron Paul?

I don't know, personally I'd love to see a "White House Press Secretary Justin Raimondo."

Count me in.

Nobody can stop him, anyway.

Besides, how long can the "establishment" media refrain from attaching the word "inevitable" to the only man that can save America?

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 20, 2007 3:50 PM

"The reason libertarians don't like either political party" - Matt

Haha. Whatever they say, libertarians vote for Republicans because they are Republicans. Americans are Republicans to the extent that they don't care about large groups of people. "Social" conservatives are Republicans because they don't care about non-Whites or non-Christians or women or gay people. "Fiscal" conservatives are Republicans because they don't care about poor people (or the middle class either). But Libertarians are the most Republican of all, because they don't care about anyone. That would be irrational.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 20, 2007 3:53 PM

When you get down to it a lot of foreigners are scary. Would you walk through a bazaar in Kabul or Ramadi and not wonder if it might be your last day on the planet? How about a stroll down Main Street somewhere in Chechnya? Care to have tea in the slums of Sao Paulo or Rio?

I wouldn't go to Kabul or Ramadi, though many people do and live to tell of it. Grozny is actually being rebuilt and I saw a recent NY Times article that indicated that it is relatively safe to visit. I wouldn't go to the slums of Sao Paulo or Rio, but there are plenty of parts of those cities that are quite safe for foreigners. I wouldn't have recommended that foreigners go to certain parts of New York in the 1980's either.

In fact, much of the rest of the world isn't scary at all. A place like Lima, Peru, which seems poor and exotic to many Americans, is actually wonderful and filled with nice people. As long as you have your wits about you and you don't do stupid things (a rule that applies anywhere), nothing is likely to happen to you. And of course, Europe and Asia are filled with "foreigners" who live in big relatively safe cities just like we do.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 20, 2007 3:54 PM

claim there's a large "libertarian vote" but the proof would be in the pudding.

It'll be interesting to see. It might be worth noting that, regardless of their numbers, most libertarians, libertarian-leaning independents, and libertarian repubs don't vote. They also aren't the kind of people who will talk to a stranger that calls during dinner to ask a bunch of poll questions.

Apolitical people who simply want lower taxes and for the government to quit telling them what to do, what they can bet on, what to eat (etc.) can literally be found in all races, sexes and across all walks of life. Among people who don't care about politics, they're probably a majority.

Whether that can be coralled into votes (for Paul or for anyone) is unknown, but probably not likely.

Posted by Shinyk | December 20, 2007 4:10 PM

I think people underestimate the degree to which Ron Paul's support is based on his demeanor. He comes across as an unscripted, straight talker.

Except when asked about the theory of evolution, when he waffles big time about it being just a theory and that it's all God's creation anyway and that he really doesn't care about his origins anyway.

I give Paul credit at least for knowing that he has to pander to fundamentalist ignorance to get elected to Congress. But it does undercut the whole unscripted, straight-talking claim.

FWIW, I hope Huckabee gets the GOP nomination, if only to have him hung out to dry on the question of giving equal time to creationism in the public school science classroom. Having a presidential campaign equivalent of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision would embarrass the creationists and do a bit to lower the increasing level of religiosity in politics.

Posted by David W. | December 20, 2007 4:12 PM

I don't know, personally I'd love to see a "White House Press Secretary Justin Raimondo."

I'd, myself, be curious to read the Opinions of whichever anarchist Paul would appoint to the supreme court.

Posted by Shynik | December 20, 2007 4:16 PM

If a third party ever came along that combined the "Government out of iraq, my bedroom, my phone line, my stash" good stuff with traditional active government liberalism - "Government give me cheap quality health insurance, and strong energy and environmental regulations" it'd be a shoo in.

Without getting too in depth, here

Libertarians believe that "active government liberalism" leads inexorably to the destruction of personal liberties.

That's one reason why they hate National Health Care initiatives so much. In a necessary effort to keep costs down, the State starts banning foods, banning soda, banning cigarettes, banning liquor, mandating diets, mandating exercise. The first three have begun to happen, how long before the next three do?

Posted by shinyk | December 20, 2007 4:54 PM

Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."

Like so many of Megan's postings, this is stated in a reasonable tone but is more or less made up out of thin air. (I'm at a loss as to why Matt continually links to her). Our current foreign policy in fact does much more to isolate us than a "Paul-ist" policy of getting rid of elaborate international trade agreements, sanctions policies, and the like and just allowing free trade and contacts free of government interference. One can see this concretely in a case like Cuba -- Paul is the only one who wants to allow American citizens to freely visit the place! How is that fearful? Same thing with Iran.

There is a long list of countries I cannot easily visit as a private American citizen because of U.S. foreign policy and sanctions. I am regularly told by "Serious" people that this is due to how "internationalist" we are. Right.

Posted by mq | December 20, 2007 5:01 PM

claim there's a large "libertarian vote" but the proof would be in the pudding

Gah! I can't take it any more! Matt, stop using that stupid phrase! It means nothing and sounds stupid!

What you mean to say is something like, we have yet to see any actual evidence of this, or perhaps I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by Tom | December 20, 2007 6:57 PM

"Megan's a Republican."

Make that case for me Pally. I've been reading her a while, and she doesn't seem to me to be that in the traditional sense, nor a Libertarian. She seems like a liberal who like to flirt with the Libertarian dogma, certain ideas, but more importantly, the moniker. I would say her former title, "Jane Galt" was the most misleading, now that I've read quite a bit of her stuff. She is a Democrat who has a provisional education in economics, which makes it impossible to ignore the benefits of market solutions to certain problems such as education and health care, yet her fundamental "Progressive" mindset cannot help but to keep her tethered to Ludditism, policy prescriptions based on Malthusian hysteria, and belief in paternalism. She may be begrudgingly pro-market, but her heart will always belong to the nanny state.

Posted by Peter | December 20, 2007 7:17 PM

Even though I rarely agree with you, I respect that you state your views as opinions and don't feel the need to make stuff up to back up your opinion (at least, not that I can recall). To that, all I can say is that you will be shocked in the next couple of weeks.

Megan, on the other hand, not only states her opinion as if they are based on some objective reasoning but, instead of letting the reader know what that reasoning is, she just expects them to accept it. Ironically, many of her readers are much more informed than her and wonder why she is trying to pass of nonsense. Is she just repeating things she heard elsewhere? Does she have the critical thinking skill of Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly? Does she know she is just spewing bs and thinks her readers are stupid and will believe it? One wonders why she has no shame. You'd think that, eventually, the embarrassment of having your name attached to such nonsense would bring it to an end.

My guess is she's just angry because McCain doesn't have a chance and Paul is part of the reason why. Don't be a hater Megan, it makes you seem like a weak person.

Posted by Andrew | December 20, 2007 7:33 PM

I love Ron Paul. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but I donated $200 to his campaign.

He cares about America, not about the rest of the world.

Ironically, I think that makes him a great choice for people who want America to have a positive impact in the world.

Remove the log from thine own eye...

Posted by Harold | December 20, 2007 8:06 PM

"The reason libertarians don't like either political party, is that nobody feels like catering to a fringe ideology with almost no supporters."

I disagree with this. Libertarians don't like either political party because libertarianism almost by definition limits politicians' pork-barreling opportunities. No one would be trying to buy your influence if you didn't have much influence to offer.

It's exactly the same reason that progressive environmentalists and conservative Christians are both relatively ignored by network television: both groups tend to advocate reducing your consumption, and advertisers of consumer goods have no time for that crap.

I think Paul has plenty of faults, but most of the other candidates have much bigger ones. I've been supporting John Edwards on the Democratic side for the most part, but even I'm shocked that he's still a viable candidate after talking about garnishing people's wages for medical insurance. This is much more serious to me than Ron Paul and the gold standard, because I'm positive that Paul couldn't push through something like that no matter how hard he tried, while I could see Edwards' proposal happening.

Posted by Splitting Image | December 20, 2007 9:34 PM

I don't understand Paul's position on abortion if he claims to be "Libertarian". OTOH, he's really not a (small "L") libertarian and never has been, according to Wikipedia. He started out being interested in being a preacher, then went to med school, got interested in politics, ran as a Republican, then ran as a "Libertarian" before going back to being Republican.

He's really not a "libertarian" although many of his positions are "libertarian" (small or large "L").

The gold standard thing is all from Austrian Economic theory. That's simple enough to understand. It's not going to happen, of course, since it would require international cooperation, so it's irrelevant. Basically it's a "sound money" and "free market" policy, which, since most liberals are ignorant about economics, sounds "nutty" to them. Meanwhile we continue to have recessions and financial crises and China owns most of the US debt - and the US dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I agree with mq about Paul's foreign policy. The basic libertarian concept about FP is basically George Washington's: deal fairly, no entanglements, no war unless attacked. Only the conservative, the neocon and the liberal interventionist can really disagree with it - which, of course, is just about everybody except the libertarians.

Matt is wrong about the "large Libertarian vote". There ARE a lot of Americans who dislike the US government and would like to see it rolled back in various areas (not necessarily the same areas for all of them consistently, however.) Paul appeals to this group. They're not necessarily doctrinal "libertarians" - and few would describe themselves that way - but they are disgruntled Americans who on occasion hold a particular opinion about an issue that agrees with libertarian theory.

He didn't raise the largest campaign funding in one day in history - $6 million from 30,000 donations Sunday - by accident. He's on track to raise more money than any of the other individual Republican candidates - some $81 million, I think I read.

Still, Matt is correct. He isn't going to be President, so he's irrelevant. I doubt he'll even have the impact of Ross Perot if he runs as an independent when he doesn't get the Republican nomination - but I suppose it's possible.

But he does point up the flaws in the American two-party - and only two-party - electoral system.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 20, 2007 10:39 PM

With enough alcohol I'd bet I could persuade Megan to support a framing hammer for President.
Toodles!

Posted by Poirot | December 21, 2007 1:20 AM

So wiretapping is OK if state police does it ?

Either you support a real Bill of Rights,or you don't.

'Federalism' is the sanctuary of segregationists and theocrats.

Posted by David | December 21, 2007 5:54 AM

re Cross of Gold speech - If it were given today or in the future it would be from Huckabee - He is the inheritor of the WJ Bryan legacy.

If any mainstream Democrat gave a Cross of Gold speech, have the corporate donors would leave their skyboxes in the middle of the convention and bills would go unpaid.

Btw - when people cite Ron Paul's NAU views (he does not believe in the conspiracy theory ) or his views on abortion, or even his views on th egod standard - they are not being serious. Since Ron won't win - his candidacy is actually only about the war and people who oppose him now are just looking for more fashionanle reasons to oppose him because they sort of support the war/

Posted by Comment | December 21, 2007 6:26 AM

As for the claim that Ron Paul wants the federal government out of abortion decisions, don't forget, he voted for the federal "partial birth abortion" ban.

Posted by The the | December 21, 2007 7:13 AM

Concern over Ron Paul's views on abortion is used as a fashionable substitute critque by many who secretly support Bush's war policy. Afterall, Paul's views on abortion are irrelevent (not only won't he be President - but if he were, he would not be able to make it illegal) in this campaign - His views about the war are what counts.

Bush's war policy has many overt supporters - but also some covert support among some Democrats.

We plan on voting in the Dem primary and would probably not vote for Paul, if it came down to it. But we admire Paul - He is tranparently decent, well humored, and correct on the central issue of war and peace.

Paul also attracts the right enemies - the theocons, ignorant chopped hands "base" that loves war, the ideologues, the demagogues like Rudy and his regiment of hack propagadists.
Paul is also loathed by the pseudo liberals who proffer bogus claims to be concerned about his views on abortion and Mexican highways. They find Paul dreadful - So he must be doing something right.

We disagree with Paul in that we think a North American Union, of sorts, would be a good idea. We think it shoud be soft peddled though - because Mexico isn't ready and there is no reason to stoke nativist sentiment. Canada has tremendous amounts of shale oil deposits and as long as oil stays above 70 a barrell, it will be profitable to extract it.

Posted by Comment | December 21, 2007 7:30 AM

At this point, the vote that Ron Paul gets doesn't mean that it is an indicator of what the libertarian vote is. David Boaz's point with that study is that 60% of Americans define themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which is basically libertarian. Yet, they don't know what libertarianism is, or misunderstand it, so they're not voting that way and instead voting for the major parties and complaining that no one represents their ideals.

Ron Paul still is about the least known of the candidates on either side, with little media coverage even when he deserves it. People don't know who he is, and if they do, they may dismiss him like the pundits do as "one of those crazy libertarians" without realizing that they're libertarian themselves.

It's a problem of education and proper media coverage.

Posted by Libertarian Girl | December 21, 2007 12:49 PM

So NAFTA is NOT a Trojan Horse for the NAU??? Holy crap what movie are these people watching???

Posted by SnowCrash7 | December 21, 2007 1:40 PM

Just to stir the pot, a North American Union would actually be a great idea. It's a shame people seem so unable to approach the concept sensibly.

Posted by Meh | December 21, 2007 2:07 PM

So wiretapping is OK if state police does it ?

Either you support a real Bill of Rights,or you don't.

'Federalism' is the sanctuary of segregationists and theocrats.

Yes, exactly! How is it libertarian to support a state government's intervention into someone's personal life? Back in the 60's Mississippi had a perfectly functional secret police (and may still) to keep tabs on those "outside agitators" and the New York city police also seem capable of sophisticated counterintelligence operations.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 21, 2007 5:41 PM