I am a classical liberal Constitutionalist.
It all starts with the LAW. I believe that the Creator endowed every human with freedom, responsibility, duty and honor, subject to the Natural Laws of the Universe. Just as gravity and other natural physical laws control our interactions with the Universe, inanimate objects, and other living beings, so do Natural Laws control our relationship with society and other humans. Just as humans have discovered many of the natural physical laws of the Universe over time and called them Science, so have humans discovered many of the natural moral and social laws of humanity over time and called them tradition. Where the legislated laws match the Natural Law and tradition, we have more harmonious relationships between people in every sphere of life. Where the legislated laws differ from the Natural Law and tradition, strife is inevitable and our freedoms are not secure. The big three freedoms are the Right to Life, the Right to Liberty (to travel, not to be enslaved, etc), and the Right to Property (not to be robbed or defrauded, to a free market and free trade, to dispose of our property as we wish, not to be taxed to death). There are others but these are the bigs. When the government passes laws that infringe on these rights, as it does constantly, our rights are not secure.
I also agree with the Constitution that the legitimate powers of the Federal Government include enforcing the borders and protecting the country militarily and otherwise. I would not have the Federal Government back down in either of those areas. We are under constant attack, like it or not.
Ron Paul is good on a lot of things. He wants freedoms to be restored. However, he also wants to allow things to be legal that should not be legal. Limitless, ungoverned immigration, for one thing. And he wants to dissolve all military entanglements for another. How can American companies engage in free trade internationally if there is no international Law that protects them from piracy and other forms of international lawlessness? Free trade requires a unifying Law to function, unless we want to go back to the days when merchants hired troops to guard themselves. Every commercial ship would bristle with weapons, and I can guarantee there would be some “traders” who would take up piracy. I would also guarantee that many countries would not allow US persons to engage in commerce with their peoples. Like it or not, the US has guaranteed international trade since WW1. Nobody else does it. While I’d love to get the US out of the business of guaranteeing the safety of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea, I don’t see how it’s going to happen any time soon. And Israel is a wonderful trading partner for the US and the rest of the world. Ron Paul would not protect American trade routes or continue cooperation with Israel. He also has a blind side when it comes to the schemes of communists and Islamists to destroy America and western European civilization. I can’t see any good coming out of that.
Some libertine libertarians even think that infants in the womb do not have a right to Life. For example, Murray Rothbard has an extensive defense of abortion. These libertine libertarians have embraced the economic truths of classical liberalism without fully embracing rights or the importance of the Natural Law. That’s where they go wrong. They seem to be libertines, not just libertarians (unlike these folks). That’s what appeals to the Democrats who support Ron Paul. They won’t ever support anyone who believes in Natural Law. They want to do what they want, when they want it, and if it hurts someone else they just don’t care.
They are not what I am. They are not classical liberals. Many of them claim the name of libertarian socialist for themselves (I’m not kidding)! They are spoiled children. They are barbarians. They are a disaster waiting to happen.
And they are Ron Paul supporters. Even though I think Paul possesses many of the right ideas to be President, and would certainly be better than any Democrat or big-government Republican, he has a blind side when it comes to the rest of the world. He ignores the plainly stated intentions and Declarations of Fricking War from Jihadists and communists of all stripes, and believes in an international community brimming with lollipops and rainbows. He is not realistic, and does not see the world clearly. He would be a danger to the US.
Would he be more dangerous than a Democrat or big-government Republican? Both Democrats and big-government Republicans would guide us down the path to the collapse of the US, and then America’s guarantee of free commerce would disappear anyway, never to recover. Plainly Ron Paul is less dangerous than total collapse. But Paul would allow the lawless preferences of communists and Islamists to advance in stealth mode under the cover of a nominally conservative administration. I also don’t think he would be aggressive enough or effective enough about dismantling the Democrat-government-media complex, and that is my goal number one.
And I also do not believe that Ron Paul is a leader who can convince the people or the government to follow him. Look at his record of successfully passing legislation in Congress. He has none. He is not a good leader. There would be open revolt in the government with him in charge, and nothing good would happen.
So while I would love to see a commodity-money favoring (goldbug) libertarian become the American President, I cannot support Ron Paul as the guy.