While I support and respect Dr. Paul, I can also agree with you (and Dr. Paul himself, actually) that Ron Paul is not perfect. The message of libertarianism, however, is closer to perfection than any system I’ve ever read about. And Ron Paul was the most noteworthy spokesman for libertarianism I’ve seen in my lifetime. He even managed to be somewhat newsworthy, despite ridicule from the press and his colleagues.

Of course, Congressman Paul also attracted a fringe element. Fringe elements tend to support champions of the freedom to live on the fringe. No surprise there. Some of these folks were pretty strident, but I figure freedom of speech means nothing if I only apply it to people whose speech I like and agree with.

I agree that the campaign was not run at the same level as the Demopublican campaigns. Part of that was money, part was electoral and media bias, part was simply who each candidate hired for the job.

I would still rather have taken my chances with Ron Paul’s potential executive shortcomings than the economic legacy President Obama is digging. I prefer imperfect libertarian capitalism to imperfect nannyist socialism; especially as we free-fall into what may be the biggest depression the United States has ever seen. But the world is as it is, and guessing at alternate future forecasts is as unprovable as guessing at alternate histories.

Also, calling for control of, and even dismantling the Federal Reserve System is not nearly as radical as it might sound. Past presidents have overseen the abolition of central banks more than once in the past, with pretty positive results.

In the end, I had to support an even-less-perfect presidential candidate in Barr, and support local libertarians with a hope to eventually see more in Congress.

I’ll continue to support the kind of liberty the American founders attempted to codify in the U. S. Constitution and the rule of law they attempted to establish. The same liberty that is routinely trampled by politicians who break the oath they first utter upon taking office when they opt for the rule of man instead.

At this point, I bear little ill will towards any libertarians who didn’t find Ron Paul sufficient to garner their votes, and even those who decided to dispassionately report on his flaws. I did not always feel this way, so I’d agree about the timing of this post.

I will still never visit the website that has the word Red followed by the word State ever again. While I’m sure many regular posters there were only responding to the most confrontational Paul supporters, several chose to lower themselves to the level of their opponents, thus becoming indistinguishable from them.

I still read and respond at The Liberty Papers because liberty (no matter what its proponents choose to call themselves) is still very important to me, and I enjoy literate, articulate views on current events which are informed by that perspective of liberty.

If you feel like frying an egg on my face anytime over the next few minutes, feel free.

Happened to stumble upon this in my pokings around the libertarian blogosphere, and I couldn’t agree more. There are a couple other sites that have expressed the same sentiment recently; you should try to get in touch with them and start a “Liberty Over Dogma” group or something. I’d be all about that. Here are the ones I remember off the top of my head:

http://fr33agents.com/toward-a-non-crazy-libertarianism/
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/youre-a-libertarian-youve-just-never-been-told.html

Think I’ll continue my poking around here a bit more….

As hard as it is to get into the presidential debates that is only 1/10th the impediment of getting past the spoiler effect of one vote for one candidate.

Why shouldn’t we be allowed to vote yes for each candidate we could get behind and no for the other Son’s or Bitches. That way we would eliminate the Barr vs Paul bull shit.

And frankly, that’s who is running the LP these days, both inside and outside the party. Bob Barr has repeatedly shown the lie of his claim to being anything even approaching a libertarian. Even since the election – as he openly supported the confirmation of Eric Holder of all people.

Barr had one fatal and unforgivable flaw amongst the libertarian wing of the LP. He never said the two most important words that people wanted and needed to hear about his past political transgressions, including and especially DOMA, Fort Hood, and his drug warrior days:

“I’m sorry.”

Humbleness and apologies for mistakes go a long way in the LP.

Had he done that prior to or even at Denver, then perhaps he might have gotten more support. Had he shown more humility and not exercised the hubris of a major party politician, he would have done better. Instead, he’s gone down as 2008′s Libertarian Mistake.

Yes, Dr. Paul (use the title, he earned it!) isn’t perfect. Nobody is. But remember Matthew 7:1-6 as well when dealing with your man Barr.

On your latter point, I agree with you. On the former, I see the word libertarian appearing with greater frequency as each day passes.

Some days, the description is even somewhat accurate.

In a world where the Republicans are suddenly opposing federal spending and the Democrats have forgotten Iraq, I’ll state that Badnarik’s driver’s license is a relatively minor issue today.

I seem to recall being lambasted for supporting a radical “left” libertarian named Russo at one time. My feelings on politics haven’t changed significantly since then.

Sometimes the best solution is to choose the issue, the time, and the place to make it an issue. Otherwise, the effort is wasted on folks who simply ain’t paying attention.

You mention Bob Barr on the race issue while neglecting to mention his eulogy for Jesse Helms extolling the entire career of a segregationist politician. I find that amusing. Barr does get a plus, for a conservative Republican, for noticing the constitution during the aftermath of 9/11, at least to the satisfaction of Nat Hentoff.

I understand this might be a reach, but one could look for an actually libertarian candidate to run for office rather than a conservative Republican who happens to be good on one or two issues related to individual liberty. Probably not your way, though. It’s much more fun to throw mud on a hard working candidate like Badnarik for daring to doubt the omnipotent state on something as basic as whether the law in Texas actually requires a driver license.

Goodness knows you’d never challenge the state.

Haven’t we discussed you sticking to one alias while you’re here? After all, it’s not hard to pick out your writing style and main points — I read the post and figured it was you before I even checked the IP address to confirm it.