Ron Paul's Liberty Defined

I was pleased to find a copy of Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom waiting for me, after arriving home this afternoon. I had ordered a copy when it came out on Tuesday, and look forward to soon devouring the 325 page work by the Texas congressman in which he tackles over 50 essential issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism.

I intend to write up a review of the work when I finish it, but let me go ahead and recommend you pick up a copy for yourself. I seriously doubt from reading his other books, that Dr. Paul will disappoint. Agree with with him in totality or not, Ron Paul always presents solid arguments and passionate defenses in his books that benefit all who take the time to read them.

If you do purchase the book, please consider buying it through the Amazon link posted below. A portion of the proceeds will go to helping finance In Defense of the Constitution.

We Who Dare Say No to the War

I really enjoyed this video of the Mises Institute's Jeffrey Tucker interviewing Tom Woods about his book We Who Dare Say No to War. It's fantastic and worth your time.



A blurb on the book:

The rap on those who oppose war is that they are "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" or not supportive of American ideals. How can this be when war itself has been a main enemy of freedom for Americans themselves? When the war is on, government is unleashed. Those who oppose this are the greatest friends of freedom, especially because they dare to oppose the regime when it matters most.

We Who Dared to Say No to War uncovers some of the forgotten but compelling body of work from the American antiwar tradition speeches, articles, poetry, book excerpts, political cartoons, and more - from people throughout our history who have opposed war. Beginning with the War of 1812, these selections cover every major American war up to the present and come from both the left and the right, from religious and secular viewpoints.

Hat Tip: Young Americans for Liberty 

New Article Hightlights Establishment's Disdain for Tea Party

Here is an interesting piece from the Washington Post.

With the Tea Parties starting have an effect on elections across the country, the establishment is not pleased. Why? Because they know that the Tea Party is seeking to hold them accountable. It is my experience that when establishment politicians are upset, something good is happening. Incumbents hate being held accountable, and they will seek any route to discredit their opponents.

With Michele Bachman in the House and Rand Paul soon to be in the Senate both seeking to form a Tea Party caucus, the establishment is squirming, and I am loving every moment of it.

Please read the article here and enjoy such gems as the one below from the oblivious Trent Lott.

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said. 

(Enough to make you sick, right?)

Americans Agree: No Tax Money to Bailout Failing Newspapers

Check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian:

It is no secret that printed news sources have been struggling for years and are on their way out as cable and online news now take over the market. A new report from Rasmussen sheds a little light on the public's feelings regarding this reality and also points to the ridiculous measures being considered by our government.

Rasmussen notes:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering several ways to help the struggling newspaper industry, but Americans strongly reject several proposed taxes to keep privately-owned newspapers going.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% oppose a three percent (3%) tax on monthly cell phone bills to help newspapers and traditional journalism.

Similarly, 76% oppose a proposed five percent tax on the purchase of consumer electronic items such as computers, iPads and Kindles to help support newspapers and traditional journalism. Seventy-four percent (74%) oppose the proposal to tax web sites like the Drudge Report to help the newspapers they draw their headlines from.

Each of these ideas was suggested for consideration in a recent FTC report. (my emphasis)

You read that right. We are not dealing with mere hypothetical speculation here. Rather, the FTC has really been suggesting taxing consumer goods to subsidize a failing news medium. That is such a violation of constitutional and free market principles that it seems unthinkable that it could even be considered.

What's even more alarming is the rationale given by proponents.(continue reading here.)

Paleos, Libertarians and Rand Paul by the Southern Avenger

A Victory for Rand Paul and the Tea Party

The power of the Tea Party Movement manifested itself mightily in yesterday's GOP primary in Kentucky. In what seemed an impossibility just a few short months ago, Rand Paul--a Bowling Green doctor and Tea Party favorite--defeated the establishment-backed Trey Grayson with a margin slightly higher than 2:1.

Lacking the powerful donors and the backing of the establishment machine, Paul's support came primarily from Tea Party patriots, conservative/libertarian groups, and other grassroots activists across the Bluegrass State. Defying the likes of Mitch McConnell and a whole host of neoconservatives, Rand Paul's primary victory proved that the grassroots can still provide electoral victory, and it will be that same grassroots support that will provide general election victory for Paul and other liberty lovers come November.

Looking to the results in Kentucky, we can draw a few conclusions.

1. The establishment should not overlook the possible success of  those they currently do not see as threats. Those minor threats could morph into major contenders who boast major victories.

2. These positive results can and should be replicated in races across the nations. If it can happen for Paul in Kentucky, it can happen for other candidates around the country. (I believe it will happen for Ron Ramsey in Tennessee, personally.)

3. The Tea Party can and will make a difference at the end of the day. The media and others can mock all they want, but they cannot argue with these (and similar) results.

Despite these truths the Tea Party movement should remain vigilant and guard against co-optation. If they are not careful to maintain philosophical consistency and purity, they may be the establishment who is punished years from now.

Progressives Don't Understand Economics...Big Surprise

Wes over at The Humble Libertarian has posted the link to an interesting study. The results found self-described Progressives to be quite ignorant about basic economics.

Some of the results:

• 67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.

• 51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.

• Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.

The conclusion:

'Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.'

Check out Wes' full commentary here. (Btw, I had to use his picture...brilliant!)

A Reflection on my Latest Gun Show Attendance

This Saturday, as heavy rain flooded Nashville, I was in the city attending a gun show. My father and I are now handgun carry permit holders in the state of Tennessee, and even though we have a number of guns, we were in the market for something pocket-sized yet powerful. (We found what we were looking for at a great price, in case you are wondering--pictured above.)

In the venue were thousands of guns, knifes, and ammo rounds. Moreover, almost everyone in the room had a gun or two on their person as they walked around. Gun right opponents refer to such as a "war zone," blabbering about the possibility of "blood in the streets" and "senseless loss of life due to the bearing of arms." Needless to say, that wasn't the case at all.

Throughout my hours at the show, I felt nothing less than completely safe--which is not always the case when I am walking around in Nashville. Someone would be crazy to pull a gun on someone with all those lawful citizens packing.

I was thoroughly impressed with the professionalism of the exhibitors, the comradery among the patrons, and of course the libertarian themes on display. It was fun, fruitful, and well worth the trip.

To the surprise of opponents of such events, individuals as well as families were in attendance--both shopping and selling. Likewise, there was diversity across the board regarding attendees. People from all walks of life where there, and all were welcome. In short, it was just law abiding citizens engaging in law abiding activity; no shots were fired, and no lives were lost.

Of course, the politics of the room were one-sided. Obviously, there were more Ron Paul fans than Obama fans in attendance--if any Obama fans was there at all. (He and all others hostile to the Second Amendment were not very poplar, as can be understood.) But my point is that these people were not just some "right-wing wackos." Rather, they were a cross-section of America with a deep concern for the Second Amendment.

Of course, this account should come as no surprise to most of you. But for you surprised that one could walk away unharmed from an event where attendees where armed to the teeth, now you know.

Smells Like Ron Paul Spirit by the Southern Avenger

What Is A Libertarian?

Checkout my latest at The Humble Libertarian.

Libertarians are those weird little guys who lurk in their parents’ basement—spouting out conspiracy theories, smoking funny things, and reading books many have never even heard of, right?

Well...some libertarians are those odd little guys and gals. But even more libertarians are average men and women, grandpas and grandmas, artists, business professionals, blue-collar workers, teachers, students, and people from all walks of life. Libertarians are everywhere you look. Some openly identify as such; others need to be alerted to the fact.

I am convinced that the average person on the street is open to libertarian principles. And many of them are libertarian to one degree or another. Perhaps it would take some explanation and flushing out of the issues for folks to identify as libertarian, but liberty is a popular idea. Most people want liberty and the government out of their business, however many do not realize that this is libertarianism. (Continue reading here.)

Sanctions Will Not Stop a Nuclear Iran...It's Bad Policy

Continuing down a path of poor policy, President Obama has made it clear that he supports tough sanctions on Iran to prevent nuclear arms development. The policy is misguided not because Iran cannot prove to be a threat; it very well could, and its leadership is less than trustworthy--to put it lightly. Rather, sanctions are never good policy!

If the goal of the Obama administration is to defend the United States, then sanctions against Iran will do little to provide for it. Contrarily, Iranian sanctions will merely provide for innocent people suffering and the emboldening of Iran's leadership.

If history has taught us anything about sanctions, it is this: The innocents of a sanctioned country suffer while the corrupt leaders thrive, and the goals of the sanctioning country are never truly met. Likewise, the so-called "targeted sanctions," which have gained popularity in the past few decades, have proven both ineffective in meeting security goals and in shielding the populace from suffering.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul rightly noted on the House floor back in December:

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. 

Dr. Paul could not be anymore right. The harm in sanctions go beyond the pain inflicted upon the populations of targeted nations; our national defense is put in jeopardy as well. 

Osama Bin Laden, himself, noted US sanctions as one of three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. In his evil response, one thing is evident: Nations remember when a hegemonic power causes suffering. Misguided policy will breed ordeals in the future which we will be forced to face, and the scars of the past are hard to overcome. 

It is clear that sanctions do harm. The evidence cannot be hidden, and even the government itself has defied its own policy and confirmed that sanctions don't work.

Jacob Hornberger notes:

Recall the brutal sanctions that the U.S. government enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years. Every year, they were causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children from infectious illnesses, malnutrition, etc. Those deaths didn't cause Saddam Hussein to leave office, which is what the U.S. government wanted. Equally important, U.S. officials were indifferent to the deaths of all those Iraqi children. In fact, the official U.S. position was that those deaths were "worth it," the term used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright when asked about the deaths by "Sixty Minutes."

 Because we know the track record of sanctions as one of failure and harm to civilian populations, those who value liberty and a strong national defense should be the first to come out against them. No conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist can consistently support these brutal and ineffective measures.

If Iran poses a true threat, sanctions will only heighten that threat. The Obama Administration would be wise to consider a vastly different policy.

Fiscally Conservative and Socially Responsible

Please checkout my latest post at The Humble Libertarian.

It begins:

Often, libertarianism is defined as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." I believe it is time to put a stop to this misnomer, and replace it with something that holds true all of the time.

There is no denying that many in the libertarian camp are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But that by no means insists that all libertarians are socially liberal. (Some even claim to be libertarians who are economically "liberal" -I just call them wrong.) In fact, many libertarians are both economically and socially conservative.*

For example, we find evidence of socially and fiscally conservative libertarians in folks like Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Mark Sanford. In fact, the Ron Paul Revolution is based around a movement heavily influenced by socially conservative free marketeers. I know many of those who ran Dr. Paul's presidential campaign and those who now run Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. They are not social liberals; far from it!

Sure, there is some tension between some "right" and "left" libertarians. I have blogged about the rift between beltway libertarians--who lean socially liberal--and the Austrian/paleo libertarians--who lean socially conservative, myself (here and here). But, for the most part, both camps get along well together and strive for the common goal of human freedom.

So how do we explain the compatibility of these socially liberal and socially conservative fiscal conservatives? How can two groups of individuals who differ widely on social issues reconcile their differences? The answer is that both are libertarians, and libertarianism is not about social liberalism or conservatism. Libertarianism is about social responsibility. (Continue reading here.)

What Will Novemeber Bring?

Besides my take on the passage of Obamacare, I have been most asked the following types of questions as of late by concerned citizens: Can we actually get some good guys in office this Fall? Do you think the Republicans will take back the House come election night? Will the Tea Party actually be able to have a positive effect on the conservative movement in November?

Well...I'm no soothsayer; so my knowledge of the future is just as good as the next guy. Moreover, I think that each of these questions, though they may overlap, are referring to different things. Nevertheless, I will attempt to unpack the political situation as I see it.

Yes, the Democrats have been engaging in very unpopular behavior for a number of years which has escalated over the past 14 months, and they have just passed a mammoth piece of unpopular legislation--Obamacare. But we need only look back to the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush to see that unpopularity and poor policy does not always guarantee electoral failure. Despite this reality, I see major gains for the GOP come November unless their is a drastic, unforeseen change in the political environment.

Therefore, if one is merely concerned with success for those running under the Republican brand, it will be a good year. This does not mean, however, that 2010 will be a great year for conservatism. As we can see from our current crop of Republicans, true conservatism and a commitment to limited government principles couldn't be further from many in the GOP's minds.

Indeed, 2010 should be a great year for conservatism and a great year for the restoration of the Republican Party to its conservative platform, but if early signs hold true, those of us who love liberty and the Constitution may be left wanting. I say this not for lack of opportunity nor for lack of strength in our cause. Rather, my doubts stem from both the party establishments' support of non-principled candidates and from movements like the Tea Party folks' perceived willingness to pick the "lesser of two evils." The establishment of both parties is powerful in its support of the status quo; since the current status quo is against liberty, the tide will not be easily turned. Moreover, if those who claim to want change side with "the lesser of two evils," there will be no hope for lasting change--unless the change one wants is a government full of liberals like Scott Brown and John McCain.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, I would like to clarify my opinion. I do think good things will come about this Fall. Good conservatives, like Kentucky's Rand Paul, will have success, and our country will benefit greatly from it. Likewise, many bad officeholders will be punished by losing their seats. Moreover, I think that the Tea Party movement and the whole host of other movements under the "liberty" banner have a great opportunity to do good and put constitutionalists into office this Fall. The time is ripe, and the moment should not be wasted.

But I have also been around politics long enough to know that people are often short sided and quick to sell out their principles. If the Tea Party movement uses its influence merely as an arm of the GOP, we as small government advocates will see electoral failure. Until shills like Sean Hannity are called out on their hypocrisy, rather than being celebrated as movement torch-bearers, their will be great difficulty in restoring a constitutional republic. Moreover, the GOP is not the conservative movement. This needs to be noted. I believe that working within the GOP provides the most promising electoral prospect, and as conservatives and libertarians, we can assert our influence to take back the GOP from neoconservatives and political progressives. But the acknowledgement that working within the GOP may be the best path to power, does not mean that we should wholesale endorse GOP candidates. Only those who share our values and principles deserve our support; others should e opposed. If we don't act accordingly, we will be doomed.

It is my fear that November will bring compromise and neglect of principle that will usher Republicans into office but leave conservatives and libertarians out.

The only way to combat this potential march of the RINOs is to hold strongly to principle. There should be no blind partisanship, no choosing "the lesser of two evils," and no room for selling out. If we do not demand a higher standard from our candidates and our representatives, we will continue to reap these poor results, and we may reap nothing but more bad governance come election day.

Five Positives from Obamacare's Passage

Understandably so, many of those who consider themselves to be conservative or libertarian in philosophy have felt disheartened by the passage of Obamacare. Even though I saw it coming for some time, I share in everyone's being upset with our leaders and their actions. But I am here to tell you that not all that the passage of Obamacare offers is bad. There is a silver lining  for those of us committed to the cause of limited government and individual liberty.

Of course, on its face Obamacare offers nothing of worth to limited government and individual liberty activists. The legislation tramples upon the liberty of individuals, neglects our constitutional compact, and increases the size and scope of government to alarming levels. However, we must look beyond the codified effects and see what this bill's passage will offer to our movement.

Sure, some will feel disgusted and hopeless, but that is based on a misguided placement of hope in a single legislative battle. Such is both naive and foolish. We cannot be "Sunshine Patriots." For, our fight for freedom must be waged in both success and failure.

Here are five positives I see from Obamacare's passage.

1. We now know exactly who our enemies are. To be frank, most of the crooks in Washington are enemies to liberty, whether or not the voted for the health reform bill. But as far as coalitions go, there are those who may at times be our allies on key issues. For many, Bart Stupak and other "pro-life" Democrats were key allies in the battle to protect the rights of the unborn. Even though his previous comments should have alerted everyone to Stupak's true convictions, his vote Sunday let any doubters know where he and his commrads stand on the issue of life.

2. This already has and will continue to drive the GOP toward a more conservative direction. When the GOP is power, it does the exact things it is railing against at the moment. Remember when the GOP was passing the prescription drug legislation a few years back? I don't care about sincerity at this point as much as I care about action. If Lindsey Graham is opposed government run healthcare, it is not because he is philosophically committed to conservative governance. Rather, he opposed the bill because of public pressure and the frustration of being in the minority. That being said, I don't care why as long as he opposes it when it comes time to act.

3. It has forced us to consider the issue of healthcare reform on a national stage once again. Regrettably, the solution offered by the Obama administration will only make the problem worse, but healthcare reform is something that needs to be discussed. We need to head towards a no-government, market-based solution. Perhaps, this fight back against Obamacare will lead to a proper solution. But even if it does not succeed, it has already led to a discussion of the proper role of government in healthcare. And that is a good thing.

4. This could prove a valuable political tool in the midterm elections. I say this not in hopes for a mere GOP sweep; RINOs would prove no value to the cause of freedom. Rather, I am hoping for true liberty candidates to have a shot at office (or at least be able to shake things up) because of the neglect of freedom carried out by our current representatives--now truly displayed by the healthcare reform debacle. 

5. There will be a renewed emphasis on nullification and states' rights. This may be the most important of all. Our government has been out of control for well over a century. Rights have been trampled and the Constitution has been completely disregarded for far too long. It is a shame that talk of nullification and states' rights has gone unspoken for all this time, but it is good to see it now. States should resist this legislation, and nullification is the constitutional and proper answer. 

Make no mistake the passage of Obamacare is troubling, but there may be good things to come. People thought I was crazy when I said Obama would be good for the conservative movement, though I have never seen it so robust and vocal. The same effect may come about because of this despicable legislation and the public's reaction to it.

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty by the Southern Avenger

 I don't know how I missed this one when it came out, but it is good nonetheless.

The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn't 'Conservative' by the Southern Avenger

Also, check out an earlier blog of mine regarding libertarianism and conservatism here.

Underwater Mortgages

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian in regards to "underwater" mortgages and contractual obligation.

 It begins:

The “Great Recession” has hit almost every sector of the economy. Times are tough, people are out of work, and paying the bills is no easy task for most. Therefore, many are falling increasingly behind on their mortgages, paying for homes that are worth substantially less than when they were first purchased. In light of this, Washington Post columnist Brett Arends advises readers behind on their mortgages to stop making payments altogether in his recent article.

Mr. Arends contends that you should neglect your payments, offering that “No, you shouldn't feel bad about it, and you shouldn't feel guilty. The lenders would do the same to you—in a heartbeat.” Likewise, he claims that you should not worry about meeting your obligations because “the economy is fundamentally amoral.”

Needless-to-say, I am fundamentally opposed to Mr. Arends’ opinion. I understand the hardship, and I do not want people to suffer in order to make payments. Moreover, many of these people are victims of the government’s intervention into the economy, which makes the situation even worse. But the solution is not to shirk responsibility. Rather, if a contractual agreement was made, that needs to be honored. We should sympathize with those who have legitimately fallen on hard times, but we should not encourage bad behavior.

Contracts are an important part of a free society. They protect our relationships and property, while providing for commerce and employment. In fact, our Founders valued the right of contract so much that they inserted a safeguard against the government violating contractual obligations into Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. That being said, a free society can only operate when contracts are honored—whether it be a contract between the government and the governed or between individuals conducting business. Therefore, when we refuse to uphold contractual obligations, there are always consequences.

(Read the rest here.)

Glenn Beck and the Nolan Chart

This was alerted to my attention by the fine folks at Young Americans for Liberty.

Apparently, on his show Friday, Glenn Beck went over the famed Nolan Chart with his audience. The surprising thing is that he actual did a top-notch job.

I've said in the past that I am not sure of Beck's actual commitment on the issues (he is obviously a flip-flopper), but even without that commitment, if he plays the part well and shares his thoughts with the politically ignorant across the country, he can be quite the useful idiot. This clip from his show is proof. Good job, Glenn.

Will libertarians Succeed?

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian. It begins:

Libertarians are often viewed as pie in the sky idealists, who sit around all day promoting ideas that could never take hold. There is some validity to this if one merely takes the musings of libertarians at face value, but that is not how they should be taken.

Just because we think that large parts of the government should be abolished or privatized, just because we want to do away with bloated entitlements, and just because our positions are principled and consistent, that doesn't mean that we are not realistic about how to achieve our goals. Most libertarians are both rational and realistic, realizing that incremental progress must be made toward our views of a free society, and that this progress will not come overnight...

But even if we aren't naive idealists, there is still a huge hurtle to the advancement of libertarianism. That hurtle is the unwillingness of the electorate to stand on principle and hold elected officials accountable; therefore, each election becomes one of "choosing the lesser of two evils" and each time the American people suffer.

Likewise, we see a flood of philosophical compromise flowing out of Washington on a daily basis as almost no one seems to stand for anything anymore. None of us are the better for it. So what is to be done when the system seems stacked against us? The simple answer is to act on the opportunities that present themselves.

Samuel Adams once noted, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Adams was right. Libertarians would do well to remember his advice. We need to be "an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." 

(Read the rest here.)

Beltway Libertarianism vs. the Revolution: Part 2

Before I continue on with the topic of beltway libertarians vs. the Austrian libertarians, I wold like to clarify something that came up in the comments section for yesterday's post. The divide between the two strands is not merely one of demographics or some other superficial factor, it is a philosophic division.

I would also once again clarify that though I identify more with the Austrian brand of libertarians, I greatly appreciate mainstream libertarians and use their resources as well as communicate with them often. Our slight philosophical differences is not enough to put a significant wedge between us. What I do not enjoy is unfounded criticisms and ad hominem  attacks from either side. That is what brought this post about. I have seen the attacks go on for years, but the article The Ron Paul Delusion from Reason finally broke the camel's back--so to speak.

In the article, David Harsanyi goes out of his way to smear Ron Paul, who has single-handedly grew the libertarian movement in recent years by leaps and bounds.

His article begins by offering a legitimate point, which is that his CPAC straw poll victory does not mean that Ron Paul is the new leader of the Republican Party. But Harsanyi quickly turns from his subject to take a jab at the Texas congressman. After offering a rhetorical question as to whether the GOP will become the party of Paul, Harsanyi goes into the following:

Let's, for a moment, forget Paul (and how I wish this could be a permanent condition, considering the congressman is neither a serious politician nor—and I can't stress this enough—a serious thinker).

This is completely uncalled for and completely unfounded. Ron Paul is a serious politician. His not winning the presidency doesn't negate his multiple congressional race successes. If we are to measure "serious politicians" by those who have achieved the office of president, only 43 men in our history have been serious politicians.

Harsanyi then attacks Paul's credentials as as serious thinker--another unfounded claim with evidence to the contrary. Paul is an author of many works that go well beyond the level of reading many are willing to take on outside the walls of academia. Moreover, his positions are held deeply based on cohesive philosophical reasoning. That alone requires serious thought from a serious man. Moreover, the same should be said of his economic and historical scholarship. There is no reason for Harsanyi's statement. Apparently, most of us define "serious thinker" quite differently than Mr. Harsanyi.

After this tirade against Paul, Harsanyi get back on his topic, but not for long. I quote:

"Congressman Paul is committed to bringing the conservative movement back to its traditional platform of limited government, balanced budgets and a foreign policy of nonintervention," claims Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman.

If only it stopped there. Paul isn't a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades. Paul's newsletters of the '80s and '90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracyland today is no mistake.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Paul is that thousands of intellectually curious young people will have read his silly books, including End the Fed, as serious manifestoes. Though you wouldn't know it by listening to Paul or reading his words, libertarians do have genuine ideas that conservatives might embrace.

Long-decided monetary policy? I am sorry, sir. But this establishment position on monetary policy may be popular, but things are far from decided. We have seen massive explosion of government spending and financial instability directly because of the rise of fiat currency. The monetary policy of Paul has been right all along and we are seeing the Austrian predictions unfold daily before our very eyes.

Isolationism? You must be talking about someone else. Ron Paul is far from an isolationist; he is a non-interventionist. Like Thomas Jefferson, Paul believes in "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." What he does not endorse is the reckless wielding of military might, imperialism, and unnecessary killing. If you hold a position counter to this, I am sorry that Paul won't play along with you war games.

I am not sure what is meant by "half-baked crusades," but I am sure based on each man's track record, I would land on the side of Paul.

Harsanyi then goes beyond attacking Paul to attacking Paul's supporters: "Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Paul is that thousands of intellectually curious young people will have read his silly books, including End the Fed, as serious manifestoes." I am sorry if we take him seriously because he speaks to issues that greatly affect us. We cannot help but take him seriously. He has seriously fought for liberty throughout his career. Mr. Harsanyi on the other hand seems content simply promoting liberty-lite. (Just read any of Harsanyi's previous work for examples.)

I believe Harsanyi is wrong to say, "Ron Paul as the leader of [the conservative movement]—or, actually, any—charge is a mistake for both parties." but I am also think that he is wrong to denounce Paul while praising Cato's David Boaz as a serious libertarian. I don't say this to downplay Boaz; has done good work for liberty. My point is merely that Harsanyi is picking a fight that need not be fought. You can have both your Paul and your Boaz and do just fine. I will do so myself, but I can't take much more of David Harsanyi or those like him.

There is a divide in libertarianism; it can be overcome. But name calling and unfounded position bashing will not do it.