Ron Paul successfully demonstrates the ignorant tendency of those in the media to slander their opponents rather than debate philosophically. Ron Paul hopes to decentralize power and in doing decentralize risk. Matthews mistakenly believes government is good and binevolent--an opinion that does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Ron Paul is succeeding in widening the spectrum of acceptable debate. It makes for much more interesting politics.

What is with all the animosity? There is enough statism on the left. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul's philosophy, the practical implications of a libertarian as president would be to return significant amounts of power to the states. The states, by and large, would pass far more humane legislation than the federal bureaucrats. Furthermore, Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He agrees with St. Augustine, should someone attack your country, there is just cause to fight back. He is not an eloquent speaker and perhaps has a slightly optimistic view of human nature. However, the consequences of his policies would be positive--in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge, and Thomas Jefferson.

I am against drugs, think abortion is probably murder, and am really stoked we shot Osama through the eye. Nonetheless, Ron Paul is the only person who is devoted enough to state rights to actually make any progress diminishing the federal government's power. Ronald Reagan endorsed him. Speaking of Reagan, great guy, good intentions, government grew under his watch. If government grew under Reagan, who identified it as our problem, we need someone who radically opposes it to make any progress shrinking it. Also, Ron is not going to make everyone legalize drugs. He is going to put the power in your state and communities hands. The responsibility goes back to the people. I don't know, just some things to consider. By the way, Righteous Indignation was great and the chapter on critical theory is super insightful.