Ron Paul picks a side.

[Bob Hubbard]

Interesting read.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/...n-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

That's fine Ron. I'm still voting for Barr. I’m opposed to supporting any candidate such as Baldwin who exposes a platform of religious intolerance and denying basic human rights to portions of the US people. Now run along and go be a nice Republican.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

10:48- Bob Barr:
[Responding to, "Final question: You had a very public falling out with Ron Paul. What went wrong? And what would you say to Paul supporters?"]

They out to be disappointed in Ron Paul. Endorsing a theocratic candidate makes little sense whatsoever. What we're trying to do is what we hoped Ron Paul would have done, which is to provide true focused leadership.

 

[Empty Hands]

I’m opposed to supporting any candidate such as Baldwin who exposes a platform of religious intolerance and denying basic human rights to portions of the US people. Now run along and go be a nice Republican.

Indeed. This was an aspect of Paul's political beliefs that very few of his supporters appreciated. He has also been involved with White Supremacists in the past, and is pro-life. All odd positions for a "libertarian."

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Very true.

More info on the "Why's" here
http://reason.com/blog/show/128719.html

 

[crushing]

Indeed. This was an aspect of Paul's political beliefs that very few of his supporters appreciated. He has also been involved with White Supremacists in the past, and is pro-life. All odd positions for a "libertarian."

White Supremist ideology is definately at odds with libertarianism, but pro-life isn't so much so, if at all when you consider "denying basic human rights".

 

[jarrod]

White Supremist ideology is definately at odds with libertarianism, but pro-life isn't so much so, if at all when you consider "denying basic human rights".

the question becomes whether the human rights of the fetus superceed the human rights of the woman. grey area for libertarianism. seems to me that the true libertarian stance would be to leave it as a state's rights issue despite personal feelings.

jf

 

[Ninjamom]

On the 'theocratic' note (and on the issue of Libertarianism in general and states' rights in particular), I can just imagine this great exercise in the actual application of the US Constitution (remember that?) and a very interesting social experiment, to boot! What if we cut the Federal role back to what is dictated by the Constitution and let ALL these other issues (abortion, social welfare programs, universal health care, income vs. sales tax, graduated vs. flat tax, corporate tax structure, marriage definitions/issues, education policy, etc.) be decided by the states? Then we could see which subsystems worked/didn't, which resulted in state bankruptcy/wealth, and which states would be swallowed up in a rain of fire and brimstone.