Regarding Ron Paul, he has a point:
Re: Ron Paul, he has a point:
"I guess I just don't see why that is considered to be libertarian. Just because you break up state power into fifty entities instead of one, it doesn't make their infringements on liberty ok, does it? On a philosophical and ideological level, libertarians should be clear that infringements of people's rights should never be subject to the whims of the state --- whether it's Hawaii or the United States of America. So why doesn't Ron Paul say this? There's no reason that his quixotic career couldn't also entail a drive to change the constitution, or ensure that all 50 states overturn drug prohibition. He has nothing to lose by stating the libertarian principles and saying that basic individual rights are inalienable.
"But he doesn't. He defends states' rights to infringe on individual liberty as being under the Constitution but what he's really defending are the Articles of Confederation. This isn't libertarianism. It's "tentherism" disguised as libertarianism."
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/ 12/imposing-political-correctness.html
![[VolunteerMatch - Where Volunteering Begins.]](http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/images/volunteermatch.gif)
