A Stitch in Haste

To review: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, but a radical anti-federalist. He loves government, but only at the state and and local level. His problem is only with "big government," not with "lots of government." He loves the First Amendment, but hates the Fourteenth.

The two doctrines, libertarianism and anti-federalism, have certain similarities and certain differences. Unfortunately, too many libertarians, in a stampede to idolize Paul*, have focused only on the former and have overlooked the latter.

So I wonder how Ron Paul, and the libertarians who embrace him, would feel about this (take a deep breath):

A federal law banning state laws banning local laws allowing municipal wi-fi networks.

The reason my head hurts when I ponder this question is not so much from the "federal versus state versus local" conundrum (which I consider a Hobson's choice), but rather because it reflects a contest between two of the great evils of politics and excessive government at all levels: rent seeking (i.e., telcos should not try to "buy" a federal ban on muni wi-fi) and the public provision of private goods (i.e., cities should not be offering taxpayer-subsidized wi-fi in the first place).

The anti-federalists might reflexively insist that the proposed federal law in the only abomination and that states and cities are within their rights powers to do as they please. But the true libertarians should, I think, simply shrug in resignation -- whoever wins, we lose.

Discuss.

(Via Techdirt.)

---

*Am I the first to come up with phrase "Paulbearers" to describe the Texan Representative's supporters?