I've so got to get a gun.

TS

Ron Paul's staunch support of States' rights is not a progressive ideal, nor is an isolationist doctrine or anti-tax rhetoric. Paul is running on a reactionary platform, just like the rest of the GOP candidates.

So, he wants to take us back 200 years rather than the usual 100 (business right), 1,000 (Christian right), or 10,000 (Libertarian)? I guess that makes him a maverick after all.

//The civil war occured after the Constitution was written. The states that attempted it did not check the Constitution for its legality because the point of ceceeding is that they believe they should have their own Laws and be seperate from the rest of the Union. The Libertarian position seems to be the first step in allowing for just this type of action to happen.//

Thank you. I was reading through this long list of replies, the entire time thinking, "Isn't SOMEONE going to mention it?" I'm glad that you finally did. I have never posted on this forum before, but I've been reading it for some time now, and I thought this moment extremely appropriate to break my silence.

As a professional historian, this is the main argument against Libertarianism that I always use: American history proves that the concept of "States' rights" is not the magical solution to all of our problems. States being unable to settle their disputes was the reason that the Civil War occurred, and for those of you who weren't paying attention in class that day, it cost our nation over half a million lives and left the South in a deplorable condition from which it is still recovering to this day. Numerous Supreme Court cases have consistently upheld the superiority of the Federal government (Gibbons v. Ogden is perhaps the best example) in regards to the States.

Ron Paul's staunch support of States' rights is not a progressive ideal, nor is an isolationist doctrine or anti-tax rhetoric. Paul is running on a reactionary platform, just like the rest of the GOP candidates.

James Kirchick of the New Republic has found some back issues of Ron Paul's newsletter in libraries in Kansas and Wisconsin. Some of them contain even more blatantly and disgustingly racist sentiments than the ones already mentioned. Here's what the newsletter had to say in a special edition on the June 1992 L.A. riots:

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."

Also:

In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."

And:

One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after [Martin Luther] King [Jr.], suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives.

There also appears to be plenty of gay-hating mixed in with this overt racism:

"Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

Paul's only excuse is that he really didn't bother to check on what was being printed by anonymous ghostwriters in the newsletter he published and distributed under his own name. Considering writings of this sort were published over a 20-year period, I find that excuse unbelievable. It's a pathetic lie, and an insult to our intelligence that he expects us to believe this.

EDIT: Some responses from libertarians in the blogosphere:

Jason Kuznicki from Positive Liberty:

I think most of Paul’s supporters and near-supporters felt likewise: Finally here’s a guy who understands us, who sides with us on the really important issues. How wrong we were.

Jim Babka (a Ron Paul supporter):

Frankly, I had no idea how bad the newsletter scandal would be. I knew this story was out there. But I had been led to believe (and as had thousands of supporters) that it was confined to a couple of quotes in very tight time span; that the author was sacked once Ron Paul found out. As Jason Kuznicki pointed out, one or two mistakes were understandable.

I've watched this campaign as closely as anyone really could. I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist. And I don't believe he wrote those words.

And I know people who have known Ron for a long time. Every one of them is convinced that he didn't write those words.

So what? Look at what appeared under his name and for how long. There's a lot! It's all too damaging.

It's a disaster.

Babka also perceptively asks: Assuming Paul's response (that he didn't write these letters) is true, the question becomes, "Who is Ron Paul covering for?" The identity of the person who did write these things, if not Paul, has never been disclosed.

Nick Gillespie for Reason Hit & Run:

I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

Also, a larger collection of responses also from Reason Hit & Run.

"We have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American people. And I think it is a mistake and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state." - John Edwards

"I've been in courthouses where I've seen the Ten Commandments. I've never had a strong reaction to it. But how would Muslims or Hindus feel if they went into that courthouse? So I'm sensitive to that...probably it causes more trouble than good." - John Edwards

"If you look at my record through the entire time that I was in the Senate and when I was campaigning for the US Senate, I opposed NAFTA, I opposed CAFTA, I opposed the Colombia trade deal, I opposed the African Caribbean trade deal, I'm opposed to the South Korean trade deal, I'm opposed today to the proposal for a new trade deal with Peru. I think I've actually been very consistent." - John Edwards

"First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves." - John Edwards

"We are there (in Iraq) propping up [the Iraqi gorvernment's] bad behavior. I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these political leaders to do something? Because that is precisely what we are doing." - John Edwards

Which seems to be a common opinion among self-styled libertarians.

Also, RP stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union is a good model; the states becoming sovereign nations in a loose association.

Kansas may teach creationism. Maybe another state will decide to teach pastafarianism.

"As long as they legally can, what's your problem with it? Maybe they can't legally. Do you know? I don't."

As I understand it constitutions are made to list rights, not spell out what can and can not be taught in schools. Those decisions are left to the department of education to have a standard national curriculum. If your position is that deicisions will ultimately be left up to the U.S. constitution then what is Paul's position? As it stands now the constitution is the ultimate law so are you saying nothing will change?

Also, if you dont think anything is wrong with individual states teaching creationism just because it doesnt directly clash with the constitution your reasoning abilities are flawed.

"What's wrong with state cecession if it's allowed by the U.S. constitution? And if it isn't allowed, then why worry?"

The civil war occured after the Constitution was written. The states that attempted it did not check the Constitution for its legality because the point of ceceeding is that they believe they should have their own Laws and be seperate from the rest of the Union. The Libertarian position seems to be the first step in allowing for just this type of action to happen. Your view of "Why worry?" appears to be your overall position as you've written it many times. I would have to agree with the other poster that questioned, "FFS, MAC, do you actually consider the consequences of ANY decision relevant?"

Yes, I do consider consequences relevant, which is why I have some doubts about empowering the states more.

Make up your mind. You were just telling us about how great it is.

So having the issue decided at the federal level would make more people miserable, and then your pick-up-and-move scenario would be recast in terms of country, instead of state. Is it easier to move to a different country than it is to move to a different state?

No. What I'm talking about is that Paul is looking to curtail the Constitutional protections and leave them up to the states. Having Constitutional protection for our rights leads to more happy people, while allowing the states to trample the rights of the minority leads to unconstitutionality. If you say that Paul supports the Constitution, then he shouldn't be lobbying to do away with most of the protections in it.
As long as they legally can, what's your problem with it? Maybe they can't legally. Do you know? I don't.

I don't know much about the U.S. constitution, but are you sure there wouldn't still be federal protections for particular state actions?

No, you don't. Paul is looking to overturn those protections.