The fact is, Clarke doesn’t even grasp this and is clearly misconstruing Objectivism and Libertarianism.

I am not quite sure I agree with this. I consider myself a libertarain but I have a great deal of admiration for Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. I have to say that I agree with Objectivism for the most part but I’m not sure I would call myself an ‘Objectivist’ at this point because I don’t think I have taken enough time to study it.

Perhaps you are right that hard core Objectivists don’t like libertarians but I think that the two philosophies are more alike than they are different (at least my understanding of the two).

This site is not a collective, each contributor is asked to write based on their own beliefs and opinions. I’d suggest pointing at a specific contributor, rather than the collective whole. Please don’t keep silent, though.

I was “collectively” however questioning the number of people on this site and elsewhere on the internet who seem to have reached a consensus that Ron Paul is a protectionist. It seems entirely unfounded given the staunch advocacy of free trade in one of his books, many of his articles, and as far as I have seen in his record in congress as well.

I remain however entirely baffled by some of the things mentioned on the site regarding the man.

In the future, I’ll be sure to be miffed silently.

Patrick, this site has 12 contributors, some of whom have not written a single word about Ron Paul. We don’t have a policy concerning Ron Paul. We don’t require that all contributors hold precisely the same views. In fact, the range is from Anarcho-Capitalist to libertarian Republican. Maybe you should be miffed at the people that you disagree with, not collectively assign blame.

Q – How many libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A – One, to change the bulb, and an infinite number to classify this one individual and label him or her, after debating the nature of the lightbulb and inventing several thousand “original” ideas about the lightbulb

Point well taken. Although, except for the issue of trade, wouldn’t his conservative stances on immigration, culture (like abortion), and states’ rights still put him within the range of classical liberals?

Now he deviates from libertarian and classical liberal ideology on trade!? What is this nonsense? Are you claiming that Ron Paul is not for free trade or are you claiming that libertarians and classical liberals are protectionists. Both are equally absurd.

I’m not sure how he deviates from libertarian ideology on state’s rights either.

Kevin, are you of the opinion that the appropriate libertarian position is one which cedes more power to national and supranational organizations than to local governments? That seems to be your position given your seeming criticism of Paul’s opinions on state’s rights and his stance on free trade (I’m assuming you dislike his favoring of unilateral free trade instead of ceding national sovereignty to international “free trade” organizations).

Of course on those other two issues there is certainly debate as to what is the true libertarian position, but I agree he does diverge from libertarian on those issues to some extent.

His own deviation from what would be called the Libertarian standard seems to classify him more as a Classical Liberal.

Paul’s deviations from the libertarian ideology (trade, immigration, cultural issues, state’s rights) would make him more of a paleo-conservative than a classical liberal.

Ron Paul, for instance, may certainly self identify as Libertarian, but he’s not nearly as doctrinaire as other Libertarians. His own deviation from what would be called the Libertarian standard seems to classify him more as a Classical Liberal.