Matt, here’s what strikes me as the irony

Matt, here’s what strikes me as the irony. Not only has the mbt shoes war become increasingly

unpopular, but Ron Paul has repeatedly been credited by the MSM for having opposed the war back when we

peaceniks were in the minority. If there were ever a time to worry that Ron Paul’s advocacy of peace

would hinder “a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare

of the mbt shoesn people,” it was maybe four years ago, when most mbt shoesns were still favoring the

war and we libertarians and other doves were outnumbered. And then it would have only been a short-term

concern.

Indeed, the Paul campaign has succeeded like nothing else in recent times that comes to mind in showing

people that peace and liberty go together as do statism and war. Ron Paul is getting the credit he

deserves and making people wonder, “Why did this man know, back when most mbt shoesns didn’t, that

this war would be such a disaster ” could it have had something to do with his libertarianism?” And

there’s Barnett saying, “No, no, no. Libertarianism doesn’t inform us on whether to support or

oppose the war. We wouldn’t want to give people the impression that there’s some connection, in

principle, between peace and liberty.” If anything is truly hurting the ability of libertarians to

increase our ranks it is this muddy picture people have of us. After all, what use is a philosophy

against big government if it offers no principled critique of the biggest government failure in the

last decade, one that nearly everyone is now sour on? Thank goodness Ron Paul has been so quick to

connect our troubles in terms of civil liberty and economic prosperity back to the issue of war. He has

done a lot to reverse the damage of the liberventionists, such that now they see it as necessary to

respond to him.