[deathwish]

In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law outlawing sodomy. Ron Paul responded to that ruling by saying:

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

This does not sound like Libertarianism at all to me. Libertarianism is about freedom; not using majority rule to impose tyranny on people's personal lives. It seems that Ron Paul only has a problem with the Federal government "regulating" your personal life, but is fine with state governments doing so.

"Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." Wouldn't a Libertarian be totally against any government regulating social matters like sex? Ron Paul sounds much more like a strict Constitutionalist than a Libertarian.

[mikema63]

Yep

[Rothbardian]

As a politician, at best he's a libertarian leaning constitutionalist.

But remember Ron Paul essentially has two faces. When he puts his statesman hat on he doesn't worry so much about the non aggression principle. As much as Ron Paul fans love him for speaking truth to power, he plays the game just like any other bureaucrat.

And honestly, he doesn't play it very well. He just has the advantage of being mostly right.

[Decky]

Libertarians are homophobic and right wing you say? Well paint me surprised. The only rights they want to protect are the rights of the powerful to exploit the powerless.

[Rothbardian]

Statists: The only rights they want to protect are the rights of the powerful to exploit the powerless.

I went ahead and fixed your post for you.

[Paradigm]

I never really got how libertarianism came to be identified with constitutionalism, when the latter often entails state's rights trumping individual rights. I figure if you believe in individual rights, you believe in them regardless of what the constitution says.

[Kman]

I never really got how libertarianism came to be identified with constitutionalism, when the latter often entails state's rights trumping individual rights. I figure if you believe in individual rights, you believe in them regardless of what the constitution says.

State rights mean a diffusion of political power and as such it is one step closer to the ideal with is diffusion of political power down to the individual. In a way you can call states rights a sort of halfway point between centralized political power and individual political power IE anarchy. Nothing odd about supporting something that is a vast and clear improvement over the status quo.

[SecretSquirrel]

Ron Paul is primarily a Constitutionalist, and secondarily a Libertarian when it does not conflict with Constitutionalism. He is often able to do this because there is not-insignificant overlap between Constitutionalism and Libertarianism, particularly in those policy areas which he tends to concentrate on.

His Constitutional argument here is correct even though it is counter to Libertarianism in this case. This is because the Constitution is not Libertarian and in fact is grossly inferior to the earlier Articles of Confederation from a Libertarian standpoint

Note: I do not know why I capitalised every instance of "Constitution" and "Libertarian" in this post. I certainly do not mean anything by it. I sort of started by accident then just decided to go all-out

[Rothbardian]

State rights mean a diffusion of political power and as such it is one step closer to the ideal with is diffusion of political power down to the individual. In a way you can call states rights a sort of halfway point between centralized political power and individual political power IE anarchy. Nothing odd about supporting something that is a vast and clear improvement over the status quo.

The 'states' should not have been called states as soon as the constitution was created. At that point the federal government became the state. 'State' refers to a sovereign government, what we have now are provinces.

So in a way it is kind of ironic to argue for 'states rights' in that context and support the constitution.