Speaking of Maddow, she just had a quite friendly interview with Ron Paul. (Something Olbermann has yet to do AFAIK, I might add.) And then in an interview afterward with NAACP President Ben Jealous, the latter opined that Ron Paul had it right about the importance of adhering to the Constitution.
OK, this isnt ALL-style reunification (especially since, yknow), but its worth a grin.
I’ve wondered this for a while. I’ve noticed that Ron Paul frequently makes the point that adhering to the Constitution would be better than what goes on today, and many libertarians would agree. Has Ron Paul ever said he actually favors the Constitution as an ideal, over Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism or something else?
I know he’s said he rejects anarchism; some form of minarchism is his ideal. But I don’t know how close his ideal minarchism is to the Constitution.
Paul says that he things probably would’ve been better under the Articles, but that the Constitution is what we ended up with and we make the best of it. He says in the end, it probably is a pretty good document with some flaws.
When he and I were talking last winter (’07/’08) he pointed out to a group of people near us that, “this guy makes me look like a moderate!”
Thanks. I’m probably too late, but in case anyone checks this thread again, is there any essay or video of his online in which he discusses anarchism? Or did he say it at a conference or something?
It’s interesting that the Left-Libertarian blog aggregator interprets the title of this post as “NAACP.” And so does the header at the top of the present window (for me, anyway). I guess some software doesn’t <3 "<3".
The <, >, and & symbols need to be escaped. Looks like instead of doing this for you, WordPress decided to display them as-is in the HTML, and just truncate the title in the RSS feed.
Have a look at the validator output.
A heart symbol (on its side).
Or if you prefer something more modern (and profane):
Adhere to which Constitution? Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s. The one Madison described in the Federalist or the one the Antifederalists described? Clinging to the Constitution is a dead end for libertarians, since statists can make well-grounded arguments that the document authorized a highly activist government. (Is the Commerce Clause really restricted to “interstate commerce”? Read it again. Does the 10th Amendment really protect state sovereignty? Uh-uh. Compare to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which the demigods dumped in a privy in Philadelphia. Is Article I, Section 8 really an exhaustive list of powers? Sorry, no cigar.)
We should stop peddling fairy tales about a libertarianish Constitution. (Not that I think that you, Roderick, are doing this.)
Even worse than the myth of the Libertarian Constitution is the effect that constitutionalism has on some (nominal) libertarians. Peruse the comments on Hit and Run some time and you’ll see what I’m talking about: “libertarians” advocating enforcement of policies that THEY THEMSELVES admit are unlibertarian based on the logic that
1. The Constitution is more or less libertarian.
2. Government should obey the Constitution.
3. Therefore government should obey the parts of the Constitution that are not libertarian.
My understanding from last year was that most libertarians who did NOT approve of Dr. Paul were basing their objections on the strong belief that he didn’t seem to mind if states encroached on our liberties, as long as the Federal Government was small. limited, and toothless. His apparent lack of support for liberty at the state level – and again, I’m basing that on many posts I read on the topic during the election season – was the sticking point. Oh, and the old newsletters he was editing from years ago didn’t help.
Those who supported him basically pointed out that he was SO much closer to libertarian views than anyone else, and it would be foolish to reject such a great candidate.
I do admire his attitude toward the national governmental structure, and also his explanations of economics and how we have gotten into the situation we are in today.
Also, last night on Maddow his main objection to the Iraq war was that Congress didn’t declare war. I still don’t know what a President Paul would have done if Congress had declared war.
I hate when he says that. Why can’t he at least follow that sentence with, “And Congress shouldn’t declare war unless our very existence as a society is at stake.” Something like that.
That follow-up is still too hawkish, I realize. But it would be an improvement.
I think that’s just part of his strategy of using the Constitution, which many Americans already “believe” in, to make his points. On the Iraq war in particular, it’s obvious he had more reasons to oppose it.
Of course, that strategy can be problematic.
The traditional understanding is that the executive carries out the laws passed by the legislative, so assuming Paul shares that view he would probably have supported the war.
When has Congress declared war without a presidential request?
I’m somewhat surprised to hear that Sheldon. I read the wiki article on the War of 1812 for example and it has no mention of the President calling on Congress to pass a War Resolution.