This is Your Ron Paul on Drugs...
---
There is an intellectually sloppy meme circulating in the Paulosphere, in the wake of the newsletter scandal, that goes something like this:
If you do the research, Paul in his prepared commentaries (not his off-the-cuff debate or interview responses) only opposes the federal war on drugs. This should surprise no one, since Paul is not a libertarian but a radical neoconfederalist who is only concerned with constraining the power of and abuses by the federal government. To Paul and his ilk, states are free to trample liberty in whatever way and to whatever extent their majoritarian legislatures see fit (including insulation from — Paul's term — "rogue judges").
Yet the war on drugs — the DEA, Coast Guard, RICO laws, block grants, etc., all notwithstanding — is of course not primarily waged by the federal government, but rather by state and local governments. Whom are you more likely to see on a typical episode of COPS: a DEA agent or some jackboot deputy sheriff?
Remember, this is the same Ron Paul who believes that states have an unlimited majoritarian-based authority (i.e., a "state right") to ban raw milk. Who would dare suggest that Paul doesn't think that a state could turn around and ban marijuana too? (Not to mention abortion, flag burning, same-sex intercourse and a host of other hot-button issues.)
If you want to declare openly and loudly that you are a radical majoritarian anti-federalist, and that you support Ron Paul because he shares your worldview, then good for you. If you want to shrug and conclude that a radical majoritarian anti-federalist is better than the other candidates, that could be rational as well. But don't dare proclaim that Paul is a libertarian or that his views reflect a commitment to individual liberty, regarding the war on drugs or anything else.
Related thoughts at The Fly Bottle.
It is irrelevant whether Ron Paul, his purported ghostwriters and his other confreres were or are "racist," since Ron Paul opposes the War on Drugs, which disproportionately harms racial minorities.There's one problem with this argument: Ron Paul does not oppose the War on Drugs.
If you do the research, Paul in his prepared commentaries (not his off-the-cuff debate or interview responses) only opposes the federal war on drugs. This should surprise no one, since Paul is not a libertarian but a radical neoconfederalist who is only concerned with constraining the power of and abuses by the federal government. To Paul and his ilk, states are free to trample liberty in whatever way and to whatever extent their majoritarian legislatures see fit (including insulation from — Paul's term — "rogue judges").
Yet the war on drugs — the DEA, Coast Guard, RICO laws, block grants, etc., all notwithstanding — is of course not primarily waged by the federal government, but rather by state and local governments. Whom are you more likely to see on a typical episode of COPS: a DEA agent or some jackboot deputy sheriff?
Remember, this is the same Ron Paul who believes that states have an unlimited majoritarian-based authority (i.e., a "state right") to ban raw milk. Who would dare suggest that Paul doesn't think that a state could turn around and ban marijuana too? (Not to mention abortion, flag burning, same-sex intercourse and a host of other hot-button issues.)
If you want to declare openly and loudly that you are a radical majoritarian anti-federalist, and that you support Ron Paul because he shares your worldview, then good for you. If you want to shrug and conclude that a radical majoritarian anti-federalist is better than the other candidates, that could be rational as well. But don't dare proclaim that Paul is a libertarian or that his views reflect a commitment to individual liberty, regarding the war on drugs or anything else.
Related thoughts at The Fly Bottle.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Posted by Kip on
15 January 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.