This is not about Eric Dondero though, and while I have very strong reservations about Ron Paul, I don’t actually dislike him. The purpose of the post was to call on Ron Paul supporters not to abandon the GOP if he did not succeed.

Gay marriage is only an issue for those gay statists who have to have the government involved in their relationships and is therefore a non-issue.

It would be more to the point to abolish the Marriage Act, the Family Law Act, the Property Relationships Act, and the Child Support Act. Relations should be based on consent, the courts should enforce personal contracts in whatever terms their parties see fit to enter into, and if people can’t obtain consent, then tough luck – they shouldn’t be able to call on government to force other people to pay their living expenses!

Also Jim, if you think Romney and Giuliani are credible candidates then I have to question your libertarian credentials. I know that the ALS and LDP likes to maintain a ‘moderate libertarian’ stance but I didn’t know that is so broad as to include socialist authoritarians!!!

Your dislike of Ron Paul is not a secret though.

DavidLeyonh: There are very good libertarian arguments in favour of pro life. While I am pro-choice myself I don’t go around calling pro-lifers non libertarian. Besides Ron Paul is running for President and wants a state matter to remain a state matter. An entirely reasonable stance

As for gay rights, he is not for gay marriage but many libertarians aren’t either (gay government marriage) that is. He is against a federal constitutional amendment and wants it also to stay a state issue. As he is running for President its not particularly a relevant issue.

Without Ron Paul, the GOP is not worth supporting, and I’m not going to support a Romney, a Giuliani, or yes even a Thompson just because they are supposedly the lesser of two evils.

On the other hand, I’d prefer to be known as a libertarian who think individual liberty in other countries is also important.

For me, this one is all about the angle that you approach it. I don’t subscribe to the military charity approach of peace keeping forces to try to help an uncivilised society behave in a way that is beneficial to them. Basically, if there’s nothing in it for us we shouldn’t bother.

Liberty in other countries is important to us because it increases our own security, and permits things like trade and social capital flows, and can allow us access to other resources like oil etc, which benefit us. So if the country is capable of achieving a free society then we should assist them to do so for our own benefit. Of course, this will also benefit them, and mutual benefit is the nature of relationships in a free society. I admit you can extrapolate this down a ‘common good’ argument if you have nothing better to do with your time, but I’m perfectly happy with the rational self-interest approach.

Considering how distant the status quo is from libertarianism, it is difficult to see how anyone could be a libertarian conservative in that sense. However if we redefine it to mean what Michael says, then I’m one too.

On the other hand, I’d prefer to be known as a libertarian who thinks individual liberty in other countries is also important.

—————————————
*and, again, for JH that’s the political and military philosophy not the verb.

Plus ça change.

Jason, Pro-war tends to mean many things. Freds foreign policy speech indicates that he supports the Iraq war, but other than that he seems to indicate that the stated intentions of foreign leaders should be taken seriously. Fair enough. I find it difficult to take you seriously with your “candidate for perpetual war” remark. More reality, and less histrionics would be appropriate.

Fred seems to have a federalist approach, and also an acceptance of a smaller government, as well as a healthy skepticism of politicis, as the following quotes will show: -

Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.

Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of 99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and local issues.
I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in Oregon.

As the last session ended, we finally saw the bill, worked out in secrecy by the current leadership. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn got it right when he said it “not only failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights.”

After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood. (Fred Thompson, Speech before the Commonwealth Club of California)