Whoa! Someone forgot to take their happy pill this morning.

I am smart enough to know many of my limitations, and I can see the limitations of others. The Libertarian point of view is a great deal of wishful thinking. The Libertarian people I know believe the government is worthless that the free market will solve all problems eventually. I disagree. I think that the government can be worthless, but it can be a force of amazing good. It does good things that people typically ignore. And, even if the majority of government is wasteful, it is a better option than having a no government free for all.

My background is that I grew up in the Midwest. I was definitely a conservative at a young age, supported Reagan in 1980 though I couldn't vote. But, as I grew up, my politics changed towards more liberal leanings. I know that people only need so much money to live comfortably, and there are many people who have problems and cannot help themselves. I do not accept the premise of the self-made man. I think we depend on each other a great deal, and no one should be going it alone.

I think it is my intelligence that helped my recognize that being a liberal was the best choice - much like the idea that a truly just God who deserves my worship would not kill at a whim or act like a petulant child.

Then, there is Paul's views on many things. His supporters crow about freedom, but Paul is against the separation of church and state (claiming this was not the intention of the Founding Fathers). Paul is against a woman's right to choose, which to me is a major issue of freedom. Paul is against the income tax, but he is for the Constitution. Alas, the income tax is part of the Constitution. Paul is against free trade treaties, but there is a clause in the constitution referring to treaties. Ron Paul may have run on the Libertarian ticket, but he is not about liberty - at least not any more than Hillary or Obama or McCain.

At first I thought it would be cool if Salon covered Ron Paul more, but why bother? Salon is full of lefty Kool Aid drinking Pinkos who are going to do nothing but hate on him anyway.

Ron Paul has SPAMBOTS!!!

and they are fabulously WEALTHY!!

Already an anonymous personal attack -- the hallmark of righty torture-loving, lawless Fascists, and apparently of a Ron Paul supporter, too. (It could be irony, but if so, why is it anonymous?)

But to get back to the topic. I love part of what Ron Paul stands for and I hate the rest. Is there any conservative (or liberal) constituency who can say differently, if they really look at everything he says? Ron Paul proves that if you take more than one principle to an extreme, they will contradict each other. Personal freedom, except where he thinks it should be restricted. Strict interpretation of the Constitution -- except where he doesn't like the result.

And that's on top of the basic problem of libertarianism, which is that a justifiable fear of governmental control is countered by an absurd trust in "free markets" to take care of us. Go look at history to see how many Americans lost their property rights (or lives) as a direct result of the unchecked power of free markets. At least with a government, it's possible to vote them out.

My theory is that since a lot of debate goes on on the internet, the most solid ideas rise to the surface and influence the most people. I think if people argue politics with each other enough, they're eventually going to conclude that liberty works. I'm convinced. To be a libertarian is simply to be someone who believes in maximizing individual liberty. Libertarianism is only going to keep growing due to all the political debate that goes on on the internet. I think it's going to influence the world in a very libertarian way. This is only the beginning. Ron Paul may not be elected, but a libertarian president will be elected in the not too distant future because of the internet.

The Constitution is an elegant, simple program, which does exactly what it says it does. The government, on the other hand, is legacy-ware, bloatware, a horrible tangle with a zillion authors. The government is...

Microsoft Windows.

"Libertarianism isn't an ideology; it is an algorithm."

This was after hearing an LP-head answer a bunch of questions with very little thought evidently involved. (Apologies throughout to European/British readers; by 'libertarian' I mean 'propertarian minarchists', not 'anarchists, likely anarcho-communist'.)

Smart modellers are always on the look-out for places where the model diverges from the modelled; most L.P. types to whom I've pointed out apparent such ask me who am I going to believe, Ayn Rand/von Mises/Hayek or my obviously-Statist eyes.

(Yes, I know that the Objectivists read the L.P. out years ago; their hostility is a token of their similarity.)

And, I hate to mention it because it's a popular disease now (I had it when it was playing tiny clubs and got paid in precisely-measured beer), but I feel compelled to point out that Asperbergers' Syndrome makes it much easier to understand a couple of rules than the broad spectrum of hu-man interactions.

I'm very happy to see a third party spoiler come in and siphon off votes from the Conservatives in the Republican nut house, same way Saint Ralph of Naderland screwed the Kool Aid drinking far-lefty Pinkos in the Democratic nut house.

I might even throw $25 at Ron Paul's campaign just to fuck up Il Duce Giuliani's chances.

an interesting point of view. If political discourse and arguments via the internet leads us all to conclude the same things, why have elections? Why have left sites and right sites? Why have Digby and LGF?

I think stimulating the conversation via the internet has caused and will cause a great deal of cross-current thinking, that's true. Common sense politics is severely lacking in the national discourse, and I think that the internet is leading a lot of people to be exposed to different ways of thinking. But I don't think a great melting pot of politics is in the near future. There are too many people who think taxes are important to fund things like wars and too many people who think taxes are a hindrance on their pocketbook.

Ron Paul is making ground because he's not afraid to stand for something. Whether that policy is good, bad, or indifferent isn't the point. He's not hedging his bets, and that's popular. Makes you wonder what the hell the mainstream candidates are waiting for. America is thirsty for real leadership. I don't know if Paul is the guy to do it, but he certainly knows what he wants, and he isn't afraid to say it.