I found an interesting discussion on R.T. Long’s blog (http://praxeology.net/blog/)
where he analyses W. Block’s response to the critics of his supporting R. Paul.
It all seems to me like a great political mess.Well, that’s politics, I guess.
Ron Paul is pro-drug legalization, opposed to the death penalty (he supported it at one time), is for the state not deciding on issues of marriage, and for the states deciding on abortion.
Walter must be using a form letter, I got pretty much the same response on Ron Paul’s immigration policy, which I have a VERY hard time seeing as libertarian.
Ron Paul has nothing against gay marriage personally, and has said that what two people want to do is up to them. He does not want to use the federal government to force the states to legalise it, however.
He is personally against abortion, but again opposes using the federal government to directly limit it.
Ron Paul is against the death penalty at the federal level, but does not aim to impose upon states that they may not use it. (Why he hasn’t always opposed it at the federal level, I know not. The constitution does not say the federal government has the authority to execute anyone.)
Dr. Paul is in favour of decriminalising drugs, all drugs, at all levels of government, but refuses to force states to decriminalise drugs with the federal government.
Paul’s real problems are as follows: he does not oppose the unconstitutional government control over immigration, he does not believe states should decriminalise abortion, and he believes the government should continue to exist. Outside of that, he’s great. 