Isaac's probably right about Paul's likely final score in terms of delegates, but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the extent to which his message about Big Government resonates with lots of voters in both parties. They may not go for all his individual positions, but there's a very widespread sentiment that our government is far to big, too expensive, and too much involved in doing things that should either be done at a state and local level, or not done at all.

In the interest of saving all sorts of straw men from being knocked around, most libertarian-leaning folks recognize that we need the Feds for monetary policy, national defense, some form of social security, etc., and a lot of us see the advantages of single-payer healthcare if it's a part of a general overhaul of the system. But it's getting increasingly difficult to make a case for our current tax policies, ag subsidies, giant defense-related boondogles, the Education and Commerce Depts, the War on Drugs, many aspects of the War on Terror, etc.

Maybe, Mr P, but libertarianism is a bad joke, like "Dr." Paul's quaint suggestion that we return to the Gold Standard. Or the rather interesting fact that the anti-Big Gummint candidate wishes to inject the State into the most personal, private decision that a woman will ever make. No coincidence that every one of the odd ragbag of characters that Gilespie and Welch assemble-- Manilow, Hitchens, Moultisas (!) et al-- doesn't include any girls.

_Yuppies_ may not need a lot of state intervention (unless we're taling about a strong regulatory state to ensure fair and transparent markets for their financial investments, or to fund the research that forms the basis of their tech companies' platforms, or ....). But anyone with children deinitely wants a strong and competent and activist state.

Help the puppies, not the yuppies. And let's have a political debate and a political process that puts working _families_ ahead of cockamamie yuppie schemers.

I've noticed that Libertarians are often Libertarians for only one or two policies at a time (usuallly something to justify narcissim or greed) and that when the chips are down, it's pretty easy to see that it isn't a realisic governing framework as a whole (nothing is).  It's usually just a high fallutin' way of trying to make sure the other side doesn't succeed at anything.

The Republicans of the last ten years have proven that once you get access to power, that high minded hooey evaporates instantly. It becomes: use the power and justify the hypocrisy later. Immediately Federalize education policy for 260 million people?  Check. 180 Billion for corporate pig farmers to buy GWB farm votes? Check?  400 Billion and counting for Grammas meds? With a no-negotiate clause, natch? Check. Wiretaps with no warrants? Check. Uncle Sam decides hapeus corpus is quaint (just as James Madison knew someone would some day)? Check.  God bless those 5% Ron Paul Libertarians, but where were they when the Constitution was being raped and millions were being paid to fat cats?  Enjoying that latte in the dorm room?  They are a little late.

Clearly, it can be an opportunistic, fickle mindset. Who hasn't thrown around the concept when they haven't agreed with a specifric policy?  

But once you need those trains to run on time, that cigarette smoke out of your face, those piles of guns flowing around to be decently managed, help with that overly expensive medical procedure for your kid, etc - that whole overwrought, overblown, overused "government off my back" nonsense goes immediately out the window.  

Who did the ripped off employees of that great citadel of Libertarianism called Enron cry to for help when they lost everything? Unlce Sam of course - Libertarians are spectral, there's a little bit in all of us, except when it's time to actually apply to our individual lives, then it's back to the dorm room. God forbid you rock the boat, protest, etc.  It might get you noticed!

It needed to be said. "Leading edge" my ass. Populists of every stripe are the vanguard of modern politics. Libertarians are just easier to write about.

Wandrey. Libertarianism, "one or two things at a time" is certainly better than no such things at a time. Let's start with their positions on reigning in our military adventurism(millions dead, more hating us) and our monetary policy which causes much suffering to the poor and middle class with real inflation, depressed wages, unemployment, declining dollar, bubbles etc. On to abolishing the IRS-what's not to like? Enron, btw, was a receipient of 1.6 billion of federal subsidies-another libertarian no no which Ron Paul criticized. Both parties are equally guilty of abandoning all when elected and are just opposite sides of the same coin. So who ya gonna call? The elites could stand a little tree-shaking(or chopping).

Agreed Lesser - shake those elites, I'm on board with that. I just want people to be honest about not liking specific policies - have courage and spine, don't hide behind theorizing hooey.  Say you don't like our priorities right now, that military adventurism is expensive and self-destructive, don't call yourself some fancy dorm room label instead.  Just say what you mean.

This term also makes for sloppy reductive thinking, like all ideologies eventually do.  Sure, I like the DMV line to be short, my tax forms to be clear and Uncle Sam to stay out of my personal health decisions, but I also don't want to breathe someone else's cigarette smoke, I know that financial markets only work with transparency and regulation and that environmental regulations mostly benefit everyone.  I don't call myself one thing to try to be taken seriously, I don't look for one system of thought to comfort myself in this ambiguous world.  

(I just remember the employees of Enron crowing and strutting about how they broke free of the shackles of government regulation, how all government was uneccesary as a matter of fact and then cried to Uncle Sam to rescue them the first minute (natch) they found out their employers treated them like they did everyone else.  Live by the sword, die by it, I say - so did Uncle Sam actually).

I also find Ron Paul's views both exhilarating and annoying and I'm glad he's in the race. But I also find him simplistic, unrealistic (my worst crime), offensive (was 9/11 really our fault?) and utterly clueless on actual governing realities (like most ideologues).  I also find it hilarious when Mr. Pure Libertarian wants the Feds to regulate women's bodies - he really has no credibility at all because of that.  But I'm glad he's making the race interesting, intellectually different from the stale status quo.

I guess the observation that libertarians are notihing but Republicans who do drugs has lost its novelty, but it still applies.  Anyway, Ron Paul is no novelty.  He's a throwback to somewhere between Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater.  Or maybe a kinder, gentler Pat Buchanan.

Miss ferrarigirl, there's nothing "vanguard" about populists.  They're no more than the term our debased language has given the demagogue, who is, if anything, atavistic.  OK, I guess you could say that the Nazis were a kind of vanguard.

As for Feds attempting to "regulate women's bodies," God knows, someone needs to regulate them, considering the havoc the current cohort of narcissistic, infantocidal females are playing with Western demographics!

I'm consistent in my libertarianism. I don't want The State subsidizing pig farmers OR pharmaceutical companies. I don't want The State regulating intoxicants, OR women's bodies.  But rice has a serious point--here in Europe, the only people having babies are Muslim immigrants, which wouldn't be so bad if they had to assimilate like in the States instead of re-creating little Iraqi villages in the cheap neighborhoods.

I could get behind a State-sponsored camp program encouraging sports and procreation.

Libertarians have exactly zero to say about how to solve the complex problems that face the US in the 21st century.  Nada.  Hating government is not a solution.  Yes, I have my preferences about where and how government, federal and state, should or should not act, but libertarians, like all ideologues, have a simple solution to damned near every problem.

What is the libertarian solution to health care?  Let 'em die, unless they can pay.  Fortress America didn't help in 1941 - see Lindburgh, Charles - or on 9/11, and it won't help tomorrow and in 30 years.

Ron Paul is misguided in the extreme, and a vote for him is an exercise in cheap nihilism.  A nation of 300 million cannot be governed without a strong, and in our system, limited central government.