Thanks for the info on his free trade stance. That paradox has been puzzling me.

He's against free trade agreements, not free trade itself. He would prefer unilateral free trade, i.e., the U.S. unilaterally abolishes all tariffs.

woops, just read the next sentence, and I now see you addressed that point.

The Immigration stance is of a piece with his foreign policy, in which there is a divide among libertarians between those seeking to build a libertarian society in one country and those who believe that lack of liberty is a global problem that only invites global solutions. (There's a Stalin/Trotsky analogy that's ironically apropos...)

What I will never be able to understand about libertarians, at least in terms of their electoral chances, is their embrace of unchecked immigration. Immigration, both legal and illegal, destroys any possibililty of libertarian policies coming to fore. California is a prime example. A libertarian, or at least a conservative, has a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election in that state. And that can be attributed, in large part, to the influx of poor Mexicans, who will understandably vote for increasing public services. Not supporting a restrictionist such as Paul is a case of biting the hand that feeds. The more immigrants, especially from the third world, socialist countries, the less chance of libertarian success. They expect, and in some cases, demand government services when they arrive here. Libertarian is simply not in their lexicon.

I hate to sound daft, but can someone explain Paul's refusal to repudiate Stormfront, etc? My question is whether reporters have asked him to do this and, if so, how he has responded, or whether we're expecting him to repudiate simply by virtue of the fact that they support him or what. I'm not looking to be convinced that Paul should or should not do this or that. I'm only looking for clarification.

I agree that Paul is wrong on immigration and trade, but I think there's a good libertarian case to be made against vouchers. With government money comes government control--if you don't believe me, ask the people at Hillsdale College. If private schools are all required to meet the same government standards, they're not going to provide much of an alternative to public schools. Moreover, school vouchers are just another government program, and as such they create a new constituency for the expansion of State power.

A better solution would be to simply cut taxes. If parents get to keep more of their own money--and as people generally become wealthier--they'll naturally end up creating more demand for alternatives to public education. The only disadvantage is that no libertarian policy wonk gets to see his pet scheme put into practice.

This kind of argument against vouchers has been presented many times before in libertarian circles. I'm surprised Ilya Somin hasn't heard of it. Tyler Cowen has advanced a similar case against Social Security "privatization." Does that make him as disreputable as Ron Paul?

Finally, I think Mr. Somin misses the point when he argues that the failure of Ron Paul to win the nomination could be a setback for the libertarian movement. The point is, he's doing much better than anyone expected, despite all of his weaknesses. If politicians decide this is because of the libertarian part of Paul's message, they may decide they need to become more libertarian.

Ex-Fed wrote:

he rejects the entire incorporation doctrine.

Can you give us a link for this. I could only find that he rejects incorporation of the establishment clause (which has some historical merit).

jim:

I'm in the middle of drafting a post about it, so here are a couple of links

Here he is discussing it in connection with the Fifth Amendment while discussing Kelo.

here he is discussing it in the context of the First Amendment.

My co-blogger Patrick points out that he seems to take an inconsistent position with respect to the Second Amendment.

I don't think it's intuitively obvious that libertarian principles require supporting an open borders immigration policy. That's a case that needs to be argued specifically and explicitly.

Ilya doesn't address Pauls two biggest weaknesses, National Security, and executive experience. The first he fails miserably, the second he has no experience on his resume. Add to the fact that he advocates a return to the gold standard, and he just fails any sort of seriousness test.

Ron Paul does bring some interesting ideas to the campaign, but a candidate has to be more than sum total of their positions.

Cold Warrior: I hadn't been paying attention either, but Googling... Apparently Stormfront is a neo-Nazi organization that made a $500 contribution to the Paul campaign. There's a kerfuffle over whether he should return the money, or as some have suggested, donate it to the ADL.

This thread is enough to make me think that the point of being a Libertarian is that you can arrange your beliefs in any pattern without ever having to see how it works out.

Ken Arromdee makes as much sense as anyone above. But Ken says, for instance,

Not many unskilled laborers will immigrate from Mexico if there's no minimum wage in the US

Ken, who's the white people, once they can legally work for less than they can now, that will be landscaping and roofing and chicken slicing or whatever undocumented workers do now? Please explain.

If Ron Paul doesn't want all levels of gov't to divest all the roads, I say he's a pansy of a libertarian.

I don't see how libertarian ideas are helped by becoming associated with a presidential campaign doomed to abject failure.

I agree, but isn't "abject failure" a step up from the Libertarians' usual showing? I ask that seriously.

Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration.

This may not have penetrated to the ivory tower, but resentment about Americas open borders crosses all sorts of political and class lines. The determined efforts of Americas political classes to fost a gigantic amnesty on the courty were not beaten back by that favorite bogy of the left, "conservative nativists".

Even the people of New York, not generally associated with "conservatism" or "nativism", drew the line at the latest attempt to treat those who came here illegally as if they were citizens.

I always find it fascination to observe the passionate support for a version of laissez faire on steroids which is held by people who are lawyers, college professore, or lawyers who ARE college professors.

Why is it that the most feverent supporters of the free movement of labor are so heavily concentrated in medieval guild systems rather then in the free market?

Ex-Fed:

My co-blogger Patrick points out that he seems to take an inconsistent position with respect to the Second Amendment.

On this point I think Patrick is wrong. It seems to me that the federal legislation Paul proposed is based on the Full Faith and Credit clause, which explicitly gives Congress the right to say how it should operate. Right now states are free to say that they'll only recognise such permits if the holder would have qualified for one under the state's own laws, just as they are free not to recognise marriages that their own laws would not have allowed. Paul wanted Congress to say that the FFC clause, as it applies to concealed carry permits, requires each state to treat such a permit as if it had been issued by that state, even if the holder would not have qualified for one under that state's own laws. That seems clearly within Congress's power as laid down in the clause itself. No incorporation doctrine is needed for this to be constitutional.

Ron Paul may not have as much of an effect on the GOP as Goldwater did, but that's not to say he won't have a sizeable effect. Thousands of people are participating in Republican politics through the Paul campaign that would not have if this libertarian Congressman had not been in the race. My hope is many of them will stay with the party after Paul (very probably) loses in the primaries. They will then be there to help make the GOP more safe for libertarian ideas, and elect some libertarian legislators and Congressmen.

Isn't that advancement for the cause of libertarianism, and isn't it much more of an advancement than just about anything else in the last two decades? I mean, for libertarians, what the hell else is there to look forward to?

Thorley Winston:

... as far as Ilya’s specific criticism of Paul’s positions on immigration and trade, they seem contradicted by his original statement that “libertarianism leaves room for extensive disagreement in [foreign policy].” Trade and immigration as are much a part of a country’s foreign policy as treaty-making and military conflicts.

Free trade is the founding issue of the entire liberal (now libertarian) movement. Libertarianism can tolerate short-term trade sanctions against specific countries, with the object of compelling them to change some policy that is against ones own country's interests, or to prevent them from becoming a military threat to ones own country. But general protectionism of any sort, i.e. any restraint of trade that is permanent in nature, or that is not geared to achieve some specific foreign policy objective, is anathema to libertarianism.

A similar argument applies to immigration. Libertarian theory is broad enough to accomodate many positions on immigration - except one: immigration restrictions whose purpose is to prevent foreigners from competing with locals in the market for goods or services cannot be justified. They are protectionism, not foreign policy. One sign of a protectionist immigration policy is when it doesn't discriminate among nations.

Your "freedom to choose where you live" ends where you enter a community of other people. No country or society is morally required to accept all entrants.

A country or society that regulates entry to such an extent is a collective where individuals have lost rights. Freedom of movement says you can live wherever you want. As log as you can pay for it.

That's gotta be one of the most basic freedoms people can have.

And it works well. Manhattan, for instance, has open borders. Anybody can live there. All you need to do is find a place to live. Mysteriously, it manages to thrive, even with all those people. The only thing that says you can't live there is perhaps your pocketbook. Not some elected official trying to engineer the population. (At least not directly)

As SIG357 says, and elaborated by Nozick (in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in the final section on Utopia, IIRC), a libertarian state has no obligation to take anyone who wants to come to it; it has only the obligation to let them leave.

(And IIRC, Nozick even allows that they might have strings on leaving corresponding to a freely chosen condition upon entry in exchange for benefits.)

shecky: Anybody can live in Manhattan if they can enter the US. Manhattan, you see, is neither a society nor even a state, but merely a city.

Further, other people have a "basic freedom" to enter into compacts among themselves that might restrict the ability of others to buy in, later, to a given geographic area.

(For instance, a group pools resources to buy a housing development, and enters into a free compact that only their immediate kin can inherit or purchase the space there.

Nobody can buy in, but nobody's rights are violated, either. This is true even if they freely purchase and compact in an area the size of the United States.

This does not provide a pure-libertarian justification for immigration restrictions in the US, as the US was not constituted in such a manner - but it does tell us that there's no inherent right to live anywhere simply because you want to and could pay for it; other considerations can prevent that with no assault on your rights, such as they are.)

Also, you say individuals in such a country have lost rights. Which rights have they lost? They're not being prohibited from doing anything, remember - nor is anyone outside the country being prohibited from doing anything they want with their lives where they are.

"Freedom of movement" needs a clearer definition and justification before it'll be accepted as a basic right conferring the things you want it to confer.

I, for one, see a difference between the freedom to go anywhere, and the freedom to leave where you are to any place that will have you. Lack of the latter makes you imprisoned. Lack of the former means that other people's rights and yours conflict, which is inevitable and not obviously something that must be resovled in your favour.

That's the problem with arguments from basic freedoms; there are multiple ones, and they not just can but inevitably do conflict.

Libertarian theory is broad enough to accomodate many positions on immigration - except one: immigration restrictions whose purpose is to prevent foreigners from competing with locals in the market for goods or services cannot be justified.

If true, that would make Libertarian theory not broad at all, but extremely narrow. It permits one and only one position on immigration. But as it happens, there is nothing in libertarian theory which says anything of the sort. You'll look long and hard in the works of Smith, Mises, Hayek, or Friedman to find any such notions.

JosephSlater

I've always found it incongrouous that the most enthusiastic advocates of a world-wide free market in labor are so often themslves employed in positions which are more insulated from competition than the head of the AFL-CIO.

Shecky may want to express this better, but you're interfering with my ability to hire a Tuvalu throat singer at my wedding.

That may be. But the question was, what rights have they (you) lost?

Ken, thanks for the response, but I disagree. I was chatting nine years ago, near Cape Town, South Africa with a guy from Angola. This guy came from a country that hardly has any government whatsoever, and technically illegally moved to a country that has, if not enough jobs for its own people, at least better jobs at better pay than his own country. Same as nearly anyone from Mexico coming here, IMO. Even without minimum wage laws, wages in the US are going to be higher than in Mexico. That's the constant pull. It's not likely that the natives here are going to let the weeds grow, the rain pour in, and cook whole chickens. A "real" libertarian would not want to interfere with the free flow of goods, capital, or labor. But each real-life "libertarian" has his own policy druthers.

Can someone clarify Paul's position on free trade -- is he saying that the U.S. should not impose tarriffs on other nations regardless of what tarriffs other nations impose? If so, is that not putting the U.S. at a clear disadvantage, which is the point of having free trade agreements in the first place? Relatedly, are there any agreements with foreign nations that Paul supports or any international organizations to which he thinks the U.S. should be a member?

Clearly illegal immigrants don't come here because of the minimum wage.

Russell Hanneken

Are you saying that all your desired immigrants will stay on your property, forever? That they and their children will never vote in our elections? That they will impose zero burden on the rest of us, be essentally invisible?

If you could say that, and make it be true, I'd go along with you. Since you can't, I won't.

Didn't we have this discussion back when the country was founded? No American has the right to import people. No foreigner has the right to come here.

Jerry F:
Can someone clarify Paul's position on free trade -- is he saying that the U.S. should not impose tarriffs on other nations regardless of what tarriffs other nations impose? If so, is that not putting the U.S. at a clear disadvantage, which is the point of having free trade agreements in the first place?

Short answer: Not if you're a consumer.
Long answer: If you're a mercantilist, or a government or media person unduly influenced by mercantilism, you want U.S. firms to sell lots of stuff into other countries and get paid. If you're Ron Paul, you figure the benefit to the U.S. of cheap stuff from other countries is reward enough; the net effect of dropping our tariffs is beneficial to us. Whether it's true or not, it's pretty standard economics.

Jerry F:
Relatedly, are there any agreements with foreign nations that Paul supports or any international organizations to which he thinks the U.S. should be a member?

Hah! Now you've gone beyond my expertise ;-)

A "real" libertarian might not want to interfere with the free flow of labor, but a real libertarian would demand as a prerequisite that the labor market not be distorted, subsidized and socialized with welfare, food stamps, section eight housing vouchers, "free" medical care etc. for the millions flowing in here.

A "real" libertarian might not want to interfere with the free flow of labor, but a real libertarian would demand as a prerequisite that the labor market not be distorted, subsidized and socialized with welfare, food stamps, section eight housing vouchers, "free" medical care etc. for the millions flowing in here.

RO'R, you're asserting that a real libertarian would balk at reaching part of a libertarian goal until another part was included. Now there I really couldn't say. It's almost the inverse of Ilya's complaint that Ron Paul won't support half-way trade deals.

As far as supporting free immigration, given your prerequisites, we're not going to have the opportunity to find out, I don't suppose. But I doubt most people would really change their minds. Anyway, it's the jobs most people are flocking to, not the housing vouchers.

This is the "spoiled child" aspect of libertarianism. If somebody cannot do exactly what they want, where they want, when they want, they act as if their constitutional rights are being violated.

SIG 357, that's roughly my take as well.

given that economists routinely and consistently from across the political spectrum note, on studying the issue, that there are and have always been net gains to the host country from immigration.

It'd odd then that nobody can ever quantify those supposed gains. The fact is that economic growth in America is comparable to that in other Western countries with much lower immigration rates.

(And if you don't like immigrants getting govt benefits, no libertarian is going to oppose a move to cut those benefits.)

No. But the tens of millions of distinctly non-libertarian immigrants will oppose it vehemently. And they are the people government is pandering to, not libertarians.

And there lies the real problem for libertarians with immigration. People are not fungible items like bushels of wheat or barrels of oil. They come preprogrammed with all sorts of ideas.

Libertarianism is a minority position in the US. And it is non-existent outside of it. The influx of tens of millions of people with distinctly socialist leanings kills any hope of limited government stone dead.

癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 食管癌 直肠癌 结肠癌 宫颈癌 乳腺癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 前列腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 恶性淋巴瘤 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌

Illya: I hope you will be just as critical as your fellow members of the Conspiracy who openly support candidates who, if anything, support less libertarian positions on immigration and abortion than Paul. Paul isn't for free immigration but, unlike Thompson, Rudy, or Mitt, at least he he has not played up the "nativist" aspects of that issue. As to the theory that "Paul can't win," please note that Thompson, a favorite at VC, is sinking in the pollls and now behind him New Hampshire.

I hope you will be just as critical as your fellow members of the Conspiracy who openly support candidates who, if anything, support less libertarian positions on immigration and abortion than Paul.

Since when does criticizing a candidate on ideological grounds bring with it the obligation to criticize people who support other, less desirable candidates?

There is no reason why a Libertarian should support illegal immigration. As it is practiced it is nothing but corruption. Politicians ignore the stated law for campaign contributions from businesses that ignore businesses that ignore it get an unfair advantage over those who follow the rule of law.

In so far as legalized open borders - I don't agree with all of it, but this demonstrates the insanity of an American Libertarian supporting open borders.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if Ron Paul rejects the Bill of Rights incorporation doctrine, doesn't that make him into the least libertarian of the candidates? He favors the right of any state to deny free speech, or freedom of religion, or any other freedoms. Now, he might oppose the particular state taking those actions, but he wouldn't actually legally prevent them from, say, closing down all newspapers and television stations. Could you get more anti-libertarian than that?

Maybe I'm missing something, but if Ron Paul rejects the Bill of Rights incorporation doctrine, doesn't that make him into the least libertarian of the candidates?

No, he just disagrees with you on the best mechanism to promote the liberty of individuals. How can the Federal Government ensure that none of the 300 million citizens had their rights violated today? It can't. It is a false promise, which leads to a false sense of security that the Federal Government will take care of everything. The best it can hope to do is selectively protect rights here and there, which makes the situation politically charged.

I have a more cynical view of the Federal Government where we are doing pretty good if the Federal Government can insure that it itself won't violate anyone's rights today.

Robert O'Rourke said:

A "real" libertarian might not want to interfere with the free flow of labor, but a real libertarian would demand as a prerequisite that the labor market not be distorted, subsidized and socialized with welfare, food stamps, section eight housing vouchers, "free" medical care etc. for the millions flowing in here.

**Me: Absolutely correct. A dissenter tried to say that the flaw with your objection was the nonsensical suggestion that libertarians couldn't do anything until they could do everything. THAT is nonsense -- and there's a perfrect example from 20 years ago the danger of out-of-balance libertarian advances in the S&L crisis. Deregulation while keeping FSLIC protection was a disaster.


bitern said in response to someone else:

The influx of tens of millions of people with distinctly socialist leanings kills any hope of limited government stone dead.


bitern replied:As demonstrated in the past by the arrival of Pilgrim theocrats, Virginia planters, assorted Papists, and our own czarist law professors. SIG, much as I agree with your dismissal of modern libertarians, I'm afraid "Thoughtful" done blew you away. Sorry.

**Me: nonsense. In terms of proportion, compared to the 'native' American population, in terms of more shared core values, and the whole-hearted and, for most, irrevocable commitment to the new country, your reference to the past is way off base. Crossing the ocean on a one-way trip meant our predecessors had to buy in to the fundamental idea of America. And it was not un-PC back then for various public and private instititutions to expect/push a modicum of assimilation. By comparison, for a large portion of th eimmigrants from Mexico, their stay is just an extended commute, if not effectively a colonization -- being geographically adjacent changes things radically from the 19th century paradigm of immigration.

FWIW I am NOT a Paul supporter due to his foreign policy.

EricH: So, what nation do the Paul supporters wish to supplant the US in its current dominant role? Because someone will replace us if we do withdraw from it.

Who cares, as long as I'm not paying for their misadventures with a debased currency?

“To my mind, the freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles.”

How is the elimination of national sovereignty a libertarian principle? How is it that people from other countries have a “right” to immigrate to the US? Particularly since the reverse does not hold. An American of European decent cannot immigrate to Japan, Korea India and many other countries. You might get a temporary work permit, but you will not get citizenship.

Thoughtful

It is simply factually incorrect to assume, as many anti-immigration posters here seem to assume, that those emigrating to the US from country X are typical of the average citizen of country X.

It is not nearly as factually incorrect as to assume the opposite, that they are the best their country has to offer, which most pro-immigration people seem to do.

It is an established fact that immigrants tend to vote for the more statist of our two parties. No assumptions are needed.

I am confident many of those emigrating from Russia with the name "Volokh" are fully aware of these pre-conditions and can likely enunciate them and apply them in principled fashion far better than most native born Americans.

I have met a fairly large number of people from the former Soviet bloc here in America. They bring their assumptions of an all encompassing state with them.

It takes a lot of blood, sweat, energy, and effort to migrate to another country.

All it takes is a short ride on a plane. Most illegal immigrants came here on a visa and never left.

And for all those non-economists in border states concerned that Mexicans are taking "their" jobs, what are their thoughts on intra-national immigration?

Set saide the sneering reference to "non-economists", which suggests that people are unable to make accurate economic assessments of their own situation, a left wing trope.

Intra-national "immigration", as you put it, is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. Americans are supposed to look out for their fellow Americans, ahead of looking out for people from Peru. Yes, really.

(Granted, SIG357, as things currently stand, those damn former Massachusetts socialists might outvote us libertarians...but you do realize, don't you, your complaint isn't with immigration, it's with modern welfare-state democracy.)

No, that is not correct. The modern welfare state exists because there are people who want it to. The people coming here as immigrants are the ones who desire it most. These two things, the welfare state and the immigrants cannot be separated.

If you want to get rid of the welfare state, starve it for clients. The Democrats are not frantic to flood the country with poor immigrants because they are nice people. They know they are growing the welfare state by doing so.

And the Republicans who support immigration know it too, but since they get to concentate the profits in their own pockets and distribute the costs to everyone else, they don't care. The worst elements in each party, working for the common ill.


I'm dropping off the thread, but .here
is a link you should read

J_A

Libertarianism might indeed be a minority position in the US, but by claiming that it is non-existent outside of it, you are showing that you know little about what does or does not exist outside the US

FYI, I come from outside the US. People look at you as if you are insane if you describe the libertarian position in other countries. They have never heard it before.

The question of who may or may not vote is an entirely separate issue from immigration.

No, it is most emphatically not. For the Democrats, that is the entire point of immigration. If the people in America don't approve of your policies, just replace then with people who do. The Democrats have SAID that this is their thinking.


People ARE policy.

But if I haven't bought into their arrangement, they're not entitled to tell me to whom I can rent an apartment

As an American, you HAVE bought into the arrangement known as America. Part of that arrangement is that you can't import your own people. If that irks you, you can always leave and try to find someplace else in the world which will indulge you. You wont.

As an American you are bound by American laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to illegals, you cannot rent to illegals. Your right to make money does not override everyone elses right to have a country. Without a country, you won't have any money. It's a classic commons problem.

Sig makes several points that are just WRONG. Let me respond to some of them BRIEFLY:

Me: It is simply factually incorrect to assume, as many anti-immigration posters here seem to assume, that those emigrating to the US from country X are typical of the average citizen of country X.

Sig:It is not nearly as factually incorrect as to assume the opposite, that they are the best their country has to offer, which most pro-immigration people seem to do.

No reference. I know of no one who thinks they are the best other countries have to offer. [Those people obviously have less reason to leave.] I think the standard assumption is they are on average more industrious and more interested in living in a land of greater freedom and opportunity. Perhaps like our own ancestors.

Sig: It is an established fact that immigrants tend to vote for the more statist of our two parties. No assumptions are needed.

No references. Hispanics in California typically voted Republican before Republicans made it clear they thought they could get more votes by using "illegal immigrants" as scapegoats. Why would hard working people just starting out a family business, as many immigrants do, vote for the party in favor of higher taxes and more regulations on businesses?

[Me}I am confident many of those emigrating from Russia with the name "Volokh" are fully aware of these pre-conditions and can likely enunciate them and apply them in principled fashion far better than most native born Americans.

Sig: I have met a fairly large number of people from the former Soviet bloc here in America. They bring their assumptions of an all encompassing state with them.

I find it hard to believe that the average Russian immigrant is similar in most significant aspects to the average Russian. But on this blog we need not guess. Many of our hosts can enlighten us if they choose to.

Me: It takes a lot of blood, sweat, energy, and effort to migrate to another country.

Sig: All it takes is a short ride on a plane. Most illegal immigrants came here on a visa and never left.

No references. Are these plane-riding visa-overstaying immigrants the ones picking the lettuce or the ones playing welfare queens? I'd have thought they were the students getting graduate or higher degrees. We certainly wouldn't want educated foreigners making a home in our country. Think what it might do to the quality of our public schools!!

Me: And for all those non-economists in border states concerned that Mexicans are taking "their" jobs, what are their thoughts on intra-national immigration?

Sig: Set saide the sneering reference to "non-economists", which suggests that people are unable to make accurate economic assessments of their own situation, a left wing trope.

It is not a "left-wing trope", Sig. It's a well known and documented fact. See Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter", where he provides all the documentation. The entire problem with "non-economists", people not schooled in economic principles, is NOT that they can't make "accurate economic assessments of their own situation," it's that they improperly generalize their own situation to the nation. So, if they lost their job, America must be losing jobs.

Sig: Intra-national "immigration", as you put it, is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. Americans are supposed to look out for their fellow Americans, ahead of looking out for people from Peru. Yes, really.

First, Sig, I guess you have a problem with hypotheticals. Of course it is against the US Constitution. My point is if you take the economics seriously, you'd be calling for an amendment to the US Constitution. Secondly, I'm not familiar with the ethical theories that say "treat your neighbor like yourself, if he's up to 3000 miles away as long as no arbitrary national boundries are crossed. Otherwise f-ck him." Sounds like nationalism to me, which has become a state religion of sorts, and ultimately has played a major role in warfare over the last century. I'm a little tired of it myself, but some people, it seems, just can't get enough.

Sig: The modern welfare state exists because there are people who want it to. The people coming here as immigrants are the ones who desire it most. These two things, the welfare state and the immigrants cannot be separated.

Yes. This is why immigration to America was so extensive 100 years ago, because of our huge pre-WWI welfare state.

Sig: As an American you are bound by American laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to illegals, you cannot rent to illegals. Your right to make money does not override everyone elses right to have a country. Without a country, you won't have any money. It's a classic commons problem.

And as a Southerner, you are bound by Southern laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to blacks, you cannot rent to blacks. Your right to make money does not override everyone else's right to have a southern state with a certain culture.

And as a German, you are bound by German laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to Jews, you cannot rent to Jews. Your right to make money doesn't override everyone else's right to have a country.

Thus the problem of legal positivism...the belief that everything the legislature does constitutes law (worthy of commanding allegiance).

And, not to keep rubbing salt in the wound or anything, but Sig: what you wrote above is not merely NOT a CLASSIC commons problem, it is not a commons problem at all in the sense economists talk of it. If you disagree, please clarify what is the resource used in common without well defined property rights and how is it being overused and undermaintained?

A. Zarkov,
I'm not saying that the Fed is infallible, but having an inelastic money supply would be a disaster. The dollar is based on the taxing power of the most stable government in the world, and the strength of the strongest economy in the world. The reason the dollar is sinking is not mainly due to deficit government spending, it is due to deficit consumer spending; our balance of trade is out of line and has been out of line for quite a while. We've gotten away with it because the dollar is such a strong currency because the Fed has done such a good job evening out shocks to the economy over the last 75 years.

If the Fed wants to pump the dollar up in relation to other currencies the prescription is simple: cut back on the money supply, raise interest rates to give foreign dollar holders a greater return on their money. Congress would also have to cut back on spending, or raise taxes, to service the debt. Now this would send the entire world into a steep recession, pop China's bubble economy, and a raft of other intended consequences. I'd just as soon keep things the way they are for at least a while longer, at least until I pick up that 52" LCD I have my eye on.

But a dropping dollar can help self correct the imbalance, it makes imports more expensive, and lowers the prices of our exports, theoretically that will eventually bring the balance of trade back into line and the dollar will rebound. Frankly that seems like the best solution to me, things ain't so bad now, and 9% unemployment seems like quite a drastic fix for the current level of the dollar.

Ilya:

...I'm not naive enough to believe that I can find a viable candidate that I agree with on everything. A libertarian protest candidate, however, must be judged by higher standards. If I am to support a candidate not because he is the lesser evil among those with a chance of winning, but as a statement of libertarian principle, he better actually reflect those principles. By that standard, Paul clearly falls short.

In my mind, I am replacing "Paul" with "[Nader]" and "libertarianism" with "[liberalism]" (or whatever it is Nader stands for -- wackoism). The notion that the "protest candidate" should be judged by higher standards may be the most precisely correct response on this point that I've ever read.

However, based on my experience with Nader supporters, I predict that your arguments will not be taken well, if at all.

A bit further with the analogy: A trivial amount of research reveals that Nader's commitment to "Green" or even liberal issues is spurious at best (union-busting in his own offices; opposition to "feticide"; letter to Jeb Bush demanding Terri Schiavo be saved by any means necessary; etc. etc.). However, in general, Nader debates amongst liberals are nothing but a litany of polemics alternately accusing the other side of being sellouts and turncoats for supporting or not supporting Ralph Nader.

Having participated in a number of such discussions, I have never once managed to get anyone to engage, let alone acknowledge, the possibility Ralph Nader -- the candidate -- isn't even remotely the candidate that everyone (supporter or detractor) takes as a given that he is. (And not for lack of effort.)

I think that my -- and your -- premise in approaching these issues is flawed. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are not judged by their environmentalism nor their libertarianism, respectively -- in fact, neither their positions nor those labels are relevant to the "discussion." They're merely proxies for secondary argument, an argument amongst people -- often at the "fringes" -- who feel not just disenfranchised and frustrated, but deceived, and about the visceral response they have to that feeling.

The key is that the issue isn't political per se -- the common conceptual element is conspiracy. Not necessarily "conspiracy" in the tinfoil-hat sense, but merely a pervasive, incessant feeling that the game is irretrievably rigged. That's what people like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul tap into -- an ideology of radical skepticism. (Not radicalism -- but a willingness to be skeptical about anything -- call it an ideology of distrust.)

Consider: if you read a few conspiracy websites, you'll quickly notice that they rarely discriminate between "stories" from the far-left, far-right, or any political "pole" ... the same sort of discordance exists among the supporters of radical anti-establishment candidates, and even the positions of the candidates themselves. Though you'll find neo-Nazis supporting Paul, you'll find even more former Naderites.

The radicalized strains of "libertarianism" and "liberalism" are vessels for these candidates not because of their principles, but because those political schemata can accommodate the level of skepticism and distrust necessary to sustain the conspiracy. Though political legitimacy demands that they profess principles, they can at the same time be repurposed.

So while generally the campaigns hew towards the commonplace principles and bywords of their chosen labels, they're also often stretched when necessary -- that conceptual flexibility is why they're useful. But ultimately, it's the ideology of distrust that's driving these campaigns, not whatever name they happen to use. Real libertarianism and liberalism recognize the contingency of politics and the possibility of deception, but their fundamental narratives are fundamentally functional, humanistic, rational. They have an internal logic which can be tested against reality.

But the ideology that drove Nader's campaigns and that now animates the Paul campaign is not about politics or even ideology, but meta-politics; a fundamental -- even epistemological -- viewpoint on the rationality of the political world. This viewpoint can't be challenged by demonstrating internal consistency; the presumption of rationality is in fact contrary to the basic principles of this radical doubt.

Political debate requires falsifiability. And even vehement politics can accommodate distrust or even a strong presumption of deceptiveness -- e.g., libertarians and the government; liberals and the market. But a politics that turns on "conspiracies" and inscrutability is not in fact political at all -- it's merely a dogma, and should be taken on those terms.

Trade and immigration as are much a part of a country’s foreign policy as treaty-making and military conflicts.

No, they're not. The latter two involve relations between governments. But governments don't trade; people do. And governments don't emigrate; people do.

If I want to buy a product from a Japanese factory owner or a Brazilian farmer or a Swiss watchmaker, why is that a matter of foreign policy rather than a private matter between me and the factory owner, farmer, or watchmaker?

Since David Bernstein doesn't believe in comments, I'll use this thread to comment on one his points -- the idea that Ron Paul's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a sign that he falls somewhere between out-and-out racism and just not liking or caring about minorities very much.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a valid point about people opposed to that law -- people like Ronald Reagan. I just wonder why someone like David would selectively employ this particular attack just against Ron Paul and not against Reagan, etc.

Let me get this straight.

Republican/Conservatives "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Liberal and/or Left-Libertarian.

Democrat/Liberal "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Right-Libertarian.

Libertarian/left-libertarian, right-libertarian, neo-libertarian(oxymoronic label) "Leaders": Ron Paul is too Conservative and/or Liberal.

So to summarize, according to these self-appointed political elitists i shouldn't support Ron Paul because he is too Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian and/or not Conservative or Liberal or Libertarian enough.

Huh?

And they wonder why Paul supporters ignore the talking heads...

I want to get back to incorporation. Jay D's response makes no sense. Nothing about the incorporation clause puts reliance on the federal government to protect rights. It simply empowers the courts (both state and federal) to protect individual rights from denial by the state governments. Taking away this legal protection for rights would mean that a state could expropriate property without compensation. That still seems to me to be a crazily anti-freedom position held by Paul. Ron Paul would apparently have no problem, with torture, concentration camps, and the shredding of the Bill of Rights, so long as those actions are taken by, say, Texas, rather than the federal government.

C Grey, grow the hell up.

Let me see if I understand you: YOUR political positions are the result of reflection, but those of other people are just "visceral responses" to "frustration".

Thank you for being a patronizing jerkwad.

There can be absolutely no dispute that advocates for small government have actually been deceived by the Bush wing of the Republican party [which still means essentially the entire structure of the party]. It's not a "feeling". It's not a "proxy for secondary argument". Every word uttered during the 2000 campaign by George Bush about his views on the role of the state in society was an out and out lie. That means that people who are angry at Bush and the Republicans for reasons centered around the concept of small goverment ACTUALLY WERE deceived, and that responding in an aggrieved fashion is the appropriate and rational response.

The Bush administration has been the worst administration on small government issues since Lyndon Johnson's. It's been the worst administration on civil liberties in American history, largely because it recapitulated the civil liberty failings of just about every administration before it and worsened them by an order of magnitude. Some people may think they had good reasons for this, but I don't. In response to this record of abysmal failure, some Republican voters are now supporting the one candidate who is actively opposing the Bush administration's policies. What is so difficult to understand about that? On what basis can you label that a mere "protest" campaign?

That means that people who are angry at Bush and the Republicans for reasons centered around the concept of small goverment ACTUALLY WERE deceived, and that responding in an aggrieved fashion is the appropriate and rational response.

Since I wrote the statement you're responding to, I will try to clarify that I was not referring to the position you describe.

First -- I would be the last person to call someone irrational for feeling deceived by the government or George W. Bush. I am positing that there is a difference between political distrust (everyone distrusts the other party, for example) and a distrust of politics in general ("it's a conspiracy and a rigged game").

Feeling that you've been lied to is, in this ontological sense, the opposite of radical distrust, because you clearly believe that there is a truth or goal to be lied about. That is an inherently rational position, regardless of whether one agrees with the reasoning.

Second -- in referring to the "underlying" debate, I'm referring to the fundamental-distrust position. My point was merely that this is not a discussion about issues, which is how Ilya approaches it and how you appear to be approaching it; after all, Paul is not, as Ilya says, libertarian. Libertarianism, like radical leftism, is merely a conceptual framework that can be extended to accommodate political nihilism. E.g., many Naderites will defend political positions, but trying to pin them down on Nader's actual politics is like grasping at smoke.

In other words, arguing with conspiracy theorists -- even the ones who are nominally on your side -- is never a debate about specific issues or ideology. No one will admit to a politics of nihilism -- often not even to themselves -- so Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, et. al. become their proxies for that belief, a way of acquiescing to futility while maintaining some symbol of a tangible "position."

Paul is a breath of fresh air both to the Republican Party and to American libertarianism, which needs to shed the silly immigration platform plank stuck in by the handful of guys who started the Party.

frankcross:Jay D, it's not promises about the federal government taking some bureaucratic action. It's about protections from the courts, including the state courts.

State courts? You mean a state court reading the bill of rights and 14th amendment directly and striking down some state law? I'm fine with that. But what if they don't strike down the law to your satisfaction? It would take some kind of federal bureaucratic action then, wouldn't it?

but look at the takings found to be unconstitutional, conducted by state and local governments

Funny you should bring that up. It is an example of the Federal Government *failing* to protect the people from their local government. What is now the remedy? Try to change the Federal Government so that it will now, in turn, protect you from your own local government? Or should you try to change your local government? Which is easier?

Did the assumption that the Federal Government would protect people from this sort of thing contribute at all to the problem? Were the people then not watchful enough of their local government because they figured Washington D.C. would protect them?

Do you care about property rights?

Yes, that is why I, as president, would not take any of your property. Now go ask your mayor if he too cares about property rights. Frankly, I'm too busy as it is to worry about that new shopping mall in your neighborhood.

I must say that Bernstein's comments are unfair.

And I am not a Ron Paulie, or whatever they're called. I think he's performing a useful service to the country in that he has some people thinking seriously about the role of government. But I don't want him to be elected President of the United States.

Coming from Bernstein -- a contrarian if there ever was one; the Lochner revisionist -- an attack on Paul for his skepticism regarding the legal underpinnings of the Civil Rights Act (Bernstein = Advocate of Extraordinarily Broad Reading of Congressional Powers Under the Commerce Clause?) is downright bizarre.

One can also argue (sensibly/rationally/in a very non-racist way) that the Civil Rights Act was counterproductive in the long run. [NOTE: I do not agree with these arguments, but I do not accuse the proponents of such arguments of "racism."] Indeed, lots of people argue that Brown vs. Board of Ed. was counterproductive in the long run, assuming that the societally "productive" result we were seeking was an improvement in the standards of education for southern black students. If the "productive" result we were seeking was some kind of concrete action on the part of the Court that "racism is wrong," well then Brown v. Board of Ed. succeeded. But since when is Bernstein a believer in the notion that the federal Government should supplant the churches/synagogues/whatevers as the primary force for morality in America? Should the federal government also expand hate crimes legislation because its failure to do so would "send a message that the American people think violence against gay Americans is o.k.? Should the federal government ban "hate speech" against gays because the failure to do so would also send a message that we think it's o.k. to hate people based on their sexuality? Didn't Bernstein write a semi-popluar book saying that this is exactly what government should not be trying to do?

Why are the rules different when it comes to picking on Ron Paul?

I want to get back to incorporation. Jay D's response makes no sense. Nothing about the incorporation clause puts reliance on the federal government to protect rights. It simply empowers the courts (both state and federal) to protect individual rights from denial by the state governments.

There are huge problems with "incorporation." The Ninth and Tenth amendments (which are clearly not enforced) protect us from the federal government having minimum wage laws. So does "incorporation" mean that we're also protected from minimum wage laws set by states?

Or to give another example...the First Amendment's freedom of speech is absolute ("Congress shall make no law"). Is the freedom of speech absolute regarding state laws also?

The Fourteenth Amendment is a mess. Ron Paul would go much, much (much!) further than any other candidate to restore the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment was what Jefferson correctly labeled as the most important part of the entire Constitution. (And the amendment that is least obeyed by the federal government.)

frankcross: So, I guess you are saying that you don't really care about state and local governments taking property.

I would personally care, but I, as president, would not think it prudent to "do something about it."

Think of it as tough love.

I read regularly foreign publications, including the quite libertarian (small "l"), yet foreign, The Economist.

I'd make every Presidential candidate from either party subscribe to The Economist, read the last two year's worth of back issues, and make them pass a 2 hour exam on the topics covered in it as a pre-condition of being nominated. I'll even give them a break and exclude the magazine's fiction, music and visual arts reviews from the exam.

C Grey, grow the hell up.

Let me see if I understand you: YOUR political positions are the result of reflection, but those of other people are just "visceral responses" to "frustration".

Thank you for being a patronizing jerkwad.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure. Do you honestly think a statement like this will convince anyone that your particular views on politics, or anything else, are the "result of reflection" instead of "visceral response."

Every word uttered during the 2000 campaign by George Bush about his views on the role of the state in society was an out and out lie. That means that people who are angry at Bush and the Republicans for reasons centered around the concept of small goverment ACTUALLY WERE deceived

What a crock. To anyone who actually paid attention during the 2000 campaign, Bush was the guy who promised to involve the federal government deeply in education issues traditionally decided at the local level and spray out federal money to church-based non-profits. If one heard that and thought "small government" the problem is not Bush's lies, it's the listeners comprehension skills.

One can also argue (sensibly/rationally/in a very non-racist way) that the Civil Rights Act was counterproductive in the long run.

And statements like this are pretty much why Ron Paul backers and apologists are perceived by some of us as a mix of ignorant hicks and ideological fanatics, leavened by a sprinkling of openly racist "yeast."

I can grasp, and even sympathize with on some level, a purely theoretical argument that a business owner ought to be allowed to engage in racial discrimination in the interests of preserving the business owner's freedom of association. But its hard to read a statement that the various Civil Rights Acts were "counterproductive in the long run" without immediately wondering what actual practical consequences the speaker believes to have been so damaging.

For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentially mandated that hotels, restaurants and retail stores had to provide the same services, on the same terms, to paying Black customers as they did to everyone else. What "counterproductive" consequence do we live with now in 2007 as a result?

Neither Holiday Inn nor their black guests seem to be complaining about the situation four decades later. Any explanation?

I think Ron Paul addresses some of the "counterproductive results." See the link (unprecedented expansion of federal powers, the development of racial quotas and the expansion of racial categorization, and many other negative outcomes).

I was just born as the Civil Rights Act was being debated, but I can tell you that from everything I know, I would have supported it in 1964 and I believe that the positives have outweighed the negatives.

But what if it hadn't passed? What then?

The South would've become increasingly marginalized. Remember the boycotts (for major corporate conventions) of states that would not create a Martin Luther King Day holiday? Would major businesses have been willing to locate in those states? Wouldn't the American South have become the Western Hemisphere's South Africa?

Let me ask you a question, C. Gray:

Who did you support for President in 2004? In 2000? In 1996? In 1992? Did any of those candidates come out in support of a new Civil Rights Act for gays and lesbians?

If you still supported these candidates, by your own definition you are an ignorant hick leavened by a sprinkling of homophobic yeast.

I'm afraid I must conclude from this thread that the Estonian tax code does not, in fact, ring a bell with anyone.

I want to know why a protest candidate like Paul is pressured to disavow a silly $500 check, while cycle after cycle, the Democrats go kissing the ring of a racist, anti-Semtitic thug like Sharpton. He's been treated like a "real" candidate in debates, given a platform to speak at the party convention, etc. Where's the pressure on Gore, Kerry, or the current crop to disavow him? His role is much more than a 500 check.

Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration. He not only favors a massive crackdown on illegal immigration but even seems to endorse the view that immigration should be "reduced, not expanded" whether legal or not. To my mind, the freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. From a libertarian perspective, our relative openness to immigration is one of the most admirable aspects of America.

That's where I part company with libertarians. No country (there's a quote about this somewhere) can survive uncontrolled immigration - let alone that from the lower layers of a third-world country. Keep in mind that illegal immigrants from Mexico are not people like Carlos Slim (one of the world's richest). They are people that Calderon - and Fox before him - want out of their country. Mexico keeps a sharp eye on their southern border, and complains bitterly that we do the same. The benefits to Mexico are immense: each person that leaves Mexico saves their government the $27.50 a year they spend on social services. And each person is likely to send back around $100/month (if not more).

That stance, in fact, may be the only thing I can agree with Paul on.

His other problem is that he attracts a vulgar and extremist audience. Among other things, there's a Mulsim website, "Vote for Paul".

There's a larger point: presidential candidates will promise the voters anything, to get elected. But they never seem to worry about the fact that once elected, there are a lot of things they cannot do without the support of Congress.

Doesn't Raich give you pause regarding the use of the commerce clause?

If not, you are not a libertarian and you are not committed to a textual approach to the constitution, and your argument is simple: I don't like that Ron Paul is both of the above, and I impute racist intent (rather than heartfelt belief) to his positions.

My point is one that you refuse to address: if anyone says anything controversial about the manner in which America addressed its race problem in the 1950s and 1960s, is that person immediately susceptible to claims of "racism?"

I'm not "refusing to address" anything. You're changing the subject. A presidential candidate becomes susceptible to claims of racism when he begins spending lots of time with, and accepting money from, people who are openly racist and advocate the reintroduction of segregation...or worse. After that, when his supporters blather on about the terrible consequences of the Civil Rights Acts, its perfectly sensible to ask "what exactly do you mean by that?"

It is simply not fair to impute racist or immoral purposes to those who disagree with you regarding the most effective means to end an evil.

Maybe not. But we are not really arguing about the most effective means to end a present evil. We are arguing about whether or not a specific historical effort (The Civil Rights Act of 1964) to end a great evil (pervasive economic discrimination against Black Americans) four decades ago has had "counterproductive" consequences in the present. And so far, the only "counterproductive consequences" anyone has been willing to actually describe have either been vague platitudes, or not honestly attributable to the Civil Rights Acts themselves. So what am I supposed to think?

Besides, I specifically impute racism to a leavening (i.e. small minority) of Paul's supporters. I think the vast majority fall into one of two categories. Many are motivated by a combination of ideological blindness and simple ignorance....much like Ron Paul himself.

Most of the rest of "fringers" motivated by rage at a political system that refuses to take their ideas and theories seriously. They identify with Paul not because he actually agrees with them, but because he openly expresses the same kind of anger they feel. Like Paul, what they fail to realize is that the system does not take their ideas seriously because the overwhelming majority of the voting public thinks they are bad ideas.

Frankly, we are not going to repeal the Civil Rights Acts, return to the Gold Standard or abolish Social Security. We aren't even going to put George Bush on trial for war crimes or withdraw from the UN, at least not without a LOT more convincing. And a man who runs for President but refuses to repudiate political support from Stormfront is probably not going to convince the broader public any of his other ideas are good ones. John Q. Public simply does not expect people who act like they have the political equivalent of Aspergers syndrome to produce good ideas.

Amen to the comments by Sharpton critic. Poor Ron Paul had to reach a certain level of popularity before the smears could begin.

Fyi: "Free trade" is not setting up extra-national super bureaucracies that are accountable to no one.

"Racial justice" is not forcing one race to pay tribute to another.

"Strong foreign policy" is not bombing and bullying those who don't follow our plan. Our jeans and sodas have done more to make amerika popular than all our foreign policy bullcrap put together.

"Freedom" doesn't mean some politician's limited grant of permission to do something.

"The libertarian view on Immigration" is not what it used to be. If this were a free country where everything was privately owned, including the roads, then immigration would be, by definition, a non-issue. The issue is the presence of gov't roads and laws that mandate every border crasher can camp right on your doorstep. Paul's position is worth studying and pondering. It is not the same as Buchanen's (and I am not saying Pat is wrong). It is more subtle and profound.

He makes the perfect protest candidate precisely because he is 100% the old fashioned idealist. His books and speeches deserve careful study.

I'm honest with myself. If I had been of age when Barry Goldwater was denouncing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 I'd have probably supported him. I'm sympathetic to libertarian arguments.

Supporting opposition to laws that give the federal government the unconstitutional power to ignore the Tenth Amendment has nothing to do with "libertarian" arguments. It's a matter of the law (the Constitution). Does one support the law (the Constitution), or does one support ignoring the Constitution when following it seems inconvenient to desired goals?

Apparently, "with benefit of hindsight," you support the federal government ignoring the Constitution, when following it seems inconvenient to desired goals.

P.S. These comments only refer to section II of the Civil Rights Act, which deals with discrimination in "public accommodations" (which are really private accommodations, when they’re owned by private citizens).

David Nieporent

If I want to buy a product from a Japanese factory owner or a Brazilian farmer or a Swiss watchmaker, why is that a matter of foreign policy rather than a private matter between me and the factory owner, farmer, or watchmaker?

If you want to bring the Japanese factory workers, or the Brazillian farmer, or the Swiss watch maker, to the US then it IS a matter of both foreign and domestic policy.

I'll take Thoughtful's thoughtful ideas one step forward and suggest that we stock the Rio Grande with sharks. Not to keep people out, but to make sure that only the best make it through. As for the ones that don't make it, well I guess they weren't cut out to be good, libertarian-friendly Americans in the first place.

Dear Mr Thoughtful

In spite of your complaint that I did not provide references to back up what I said, you did not, and do not, do this yourself. Curious.

Hispanics in California typically voted Republican before Republicans made it clear they thought they could get more votes by using "illegal immigrants" as scapegoats.

In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis all cross the country. He failed to capture the Hispanic vote, either in the country or in California. In fact, even though Bush, like Reagan before him, captured California, he lost in that state among Hispanics.

This was long before Prop 187, which did not take place until 1994. (And did not, in any case, "scapegoat" anybody.)

Just this once, I'll do what you failed to do, and provide a link.

Reagan was never able to capture the Hispanic vote. I'm not going to give you a link, you need the exercise, but Rudy Giuliani never won the Hispanic vote in the three times he ran for mayor of NY. And there is no politician who has courted illegal immigrants more assidiously than Giuliani.

I am confident many of those emigrating from Russia with the name "Volokh" are fully aware of these pre-conditions and can likely enunciate them and apply them in principled fashion far better than most native born Americans.

I'm pleased that you are confident, but I still need references.

Are these plane-riding visa-overstaying immigrants the ones picking the lettuce or the ones playing welfare queens? I'd have thought they were the students getting graduate or higher degrees. We certainly wouldn't want educated foreigners making a home in our country. Think what it might do to the quality of our public schools!!

References?

See Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter",

I'm familiar with Mr Caplans left-wing nonsense, which repudiates every free market thinker from Smith to Friedman.

My point is if you take the economics seriously, you'd be calling for an amendment to the US Constitution.

Strawman.

Secondly, I'm not familiar with the ethical theories that say "treat your neighbor like yourself, if he's up to 3000 miles away as long as no arbitrary national boundries are crossed." Sounds like nationalism to me ..

To left wingers, just about everything sounds like the second coming of the Third Reich.

Yes. This is why immigration to America was so extensive 100 years ago, because of our huge pre-WWI welfare state.

Strawman.

Bernstein is just picking on Ron Paul because Paul has made it clear that he thinks U.S. Middle East policy is to intertwined with Israel and that Israel can fend for itself.

Also, as someone who has successfully run for a low level public office, I can assure you that Ron Paul has more pressing concerns running for the office of POTUS than scrutinizing and addressing the ideological background of every supporter. I seem to recall reading from Barry Goldwater's autobiography that he never refused a campaign donation from anyone because his votes were always dictated by his conscience and not by the campaign donors' desires.

Sorry, that sentence above should read: "...your restaurant or hotel."

Libertarians are Pro-Choice on Everything.
If they are not, then they are not.
Don't you own your own body?
Can you be free if you do not?
Ron Paul won't win the RP nomination anyways.
Why should I compromise my principles,
and turn my back on better libertarian representation that supports me?
I cannot win with Ron Paul because
he does not support my Body-Ownerships-Rights.
DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE
Shouldn't you support a Candidate that agrees with you?
Don't you own your own body?
Can you be free if you do not?
One of the stated goals of the Libertarian Party
is cultivate and to promote LP Candidates.
THE LP HAS THE BEST LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES
They all support or Body-Ownership-Rights,
and they need our support! We asked them to run,
and now some of the LP leadership have betrayed us
and now openly support a Republicant against Choice!
As members should we not expect our leaders to
do their jobs and pursue stated Party goals?
Christine Smith &George Phillies &Steve Kubby
should expect, and receive, our exclusive dedication.
Please make sure that their campaigns will carry on the
message of limited government and personal responsibility.
They need your contribution today.
Libertarians are Pro-Choice on Everything!
Shouldn't the Candidate that you support agree?
Ron Boozell aka stoneman76
Founder &Host, Liberty Bandwagon
LPO Board member
LPDC Secretary
yahoo's largest libertarian group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
I do not believe in or advocate
the initiation of force (or fraud)
as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Do you or do you not support Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No, its only an injustice if the right to free association is applicable in all conceivable circumstances AND is never outweighed by other considerations.

And it's not an injustice if you think that it's just for the federal government to break the law for a "good cause."

Its also a view that has nothing to do with the US Constitution, which has always given Congress the power to regulate business enterprises engaged in interstate commerce,...

So...why don't you site some historical evidence for why you think that the Founding Fathers intended Congress to be able write laws telling owners of taverns and inns whom they might or might not serve? In what Federalist paper was that suggested as being a proper function of the federal government under the Constitution? What early (say, the first ~50-75 years following ratification of the Constitution) federal law is similar to what Congress did regarding "public accommodations" in the Civil Rights Act?

In fact, what historical evidence do you have that the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "among the several states" as anything but an attempt to prohibit state governments from erecting barriers to free trade?

Here is an assessment of history prior to the Constitution:

Before adoption of the Constitution, states, under the Articles of Confederation, had erected protectionist barriers that interfered with the free flow of trade in the new country. One of the main reasons for the Constitutional Convention was to remedy that problem. The framers' solution was the commerce clause, which was intended to make a free-trade zone out of the United States.

Do you agree or disagree with that assessment? That is, do you think the commerce clause was meant to address ***state government*** barriers to free trade, or do you think there was some other reason (e.g., to make sure Congress could write laws telling tavern and inn owners how they should run their businesses)?

An excerpt from a letter to the National Review by the Ron Paul Campaign regarding certain supporters:

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Is it that absurd to think that elements of the US government (or associated NGOs) were behind 9/11? Or is it more absurd just to talk about a viable THEORY that has scary implications?

I think this is the key issue on this point. I agree that many of the 'Truthers' probably WANT the conspiracies to be true, but that's no more unscientific than refusing (as most of the country does) to honestly consider the evidence in the first place.