David Hume, let me make it clear then.

In my humble opinion, Ron Paul has nothing to offer the US electorate except fantasy that cannot be lived out nationally, beyond the two-year-long extravaganza of fertility-rite-cum-popularity-contest that is the US electoral mechanism in blossom.

If you happen to be American, David (or other gentle readers), kindly don't take that personally. It is the process, not the people. When I grew up, all of my best friends were Americans, because that's where I grew up. And taken one at a time, Americans are, on the average, just like people anywhere: to be taken respectfully as individuals.

But the 1968 presidential race made clear to me what a rat race it really is, burlesquing the worst, dragging the best through the mud, wasting money colossally, like Kerry Packer did in Vegas, just because it can be done; sponsored by the corporations that are otherwise unremittingly both stingy and mendacious, and always geared toward the next board meeting, with as many local, state and federal legislators in their pockets as will fit.

Ron Paul, bless his cotton socks, wants to get rid of "big government". When I was 18 and uneducated, I could see for myself that "big government" counters "big business", and to get rid of one leaves the individual beholden to the other. Unfortunately, neither is the lesser of two evils on its own.

And what is the fundamental aim of big business? To maximise profits for the shareholder. So I do what I can for responsible civic governance, at the local level.

How am I to avoid being BG or BB's useful idiot? My advice would do you no good, David. It's a jungle you have to find your own way through.

Sir Vivor,what's wrong with Ron Paul's vision of bringing back their brilliant consitiution based on the Magna Carta? Obama and Bush have now brought in a police state in law that awaits fascist enactment.

The good thing would be Dr. Paul being POTUS

The bad thing would be Dr. Paul being POTUS because much like the incumbent, it would soon be evidently clear how moribund the system is (just like ours) no matter who's at the helm.

He's definitely not left (a uselessly arcane term in my opinion), he's a (l)iberal (l)iberterian, much like myself and it's pretty lonely in Aus for us liberterians :)

I have no one to vote for in Aus; ALP & LNP are tweedle dum and tweedle dee and while the Greens have some admirable liberal policies , they want us to end up with the same bureaucratic nightmare of micro managing barstadry the incumbents have given us, presuming they know better then us on how to work and live our lives.

Our entire system of democracy needs to be dismantled and a more liquid form of democracy introduced, where I can support polices from whomever I want, rather then throwing my lot in en toto. The only remote chance of that happening is ditching the party system. Independents it is, hopefully with them as a majority we have some hope of tearing it down to rebuild it, but I digress :)

and thank <insert deity of choice> for Peter Hume, keep it up good sir, superb stuff. Don't be disheartened by the lunacy of the majority that appear to want change by doing the same thing over and over or are happy as long as "their party" is in, regardless of the consequences to the nation.

An example, 1.5Million of these "nutters" (and I use the word as a term of endearment) voted for the ALP at the last NSW election, it boggles the mind... just how bad do you have to be before you people will let it go ?

Valley Guy,the Libertarians are growing philosophy and we are thinkers who have boundless courage.

Spot on Arjay, thanks Valley Guy.

David f
If you weren’t being dishonest, then I’m sorry. However the only other possibility is that you’re confused, for the following reasons.

1. “That would privatise wars…”
If the US government wasn’t blowing up bridal parties and goatherds and schoolchildren and shop-keepers in Afghanistan and Iraq, corporations would be doing it? Coca-Cola perhaps?

Why do you say that?

2. “It logically follows.”

No it doesn’t. It’s a complete non sequitur.

Why have you ignored the obvious logical possibility that, if the government wasn’t using its monopoly taxing and warring powers to attack those countries, we would have peace instead?

3. “His policy is also to eliminate government overseeing the activity of corporations”.

Not it’s not, and your misrepresentation is only displaying your misunderstanding of the better option of freedom and peace that you’re ignoring.

The foundation of libertarian philosophy is that the initiation of aggression is bad and should be banned, by force if necessary. Paul’s policy as concerns corporations, consistent with that philosophy, is that the legitimate function of government is to stop aggression and fraud. He is in favour of government stopping aggressive activity – unlike you, who think it’s the basis of a good society.

Please cite evidence in Paul’s policies for your allegation, or admit that you are wrong on that point.

4. “His policy is also to … limit US government international involvement.”

So what? Please admit that you are literally supporting unlimited arbitrary power.

Why shouldn’t US government international involvement be curtailed, if it relies on the use of unprovoked aggression at home or abroad, or is unconstitutional? Why shouldn’t relations with other people be based on peace? Why is that automatically bad?

5. “That would privatise wars and allow corporations to hire private armies to advance their ends…”

Your conclusion is illogical and unsound for the four reasons I have shown.

Furthermore the risk to private corporations would be much greater, and therefore the likelihood of their aggression much less, without the incitement and protection of the US government – obviously!