Less, I too hope Ron Paul is ecumenical enough to endorse our nominee whether it's a fellow constitutionalist (Barr) or a self-described anarchist (Ruwart). I'm adding you to my list of radical/anarchist libertarians who don't consider Ron Paul to be irredeemably tainted by his unyielding support for the existence and authority of the federal government defined by the U.S. Constitution: http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/teflon-libertarian-moderate.html. I created that list of 13 Ron Paul reformista heresies against radicalism before Paul told a national network TV audience that
- "it's not part of my platform" to "abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies";
- when he ran for President in 1988 it's not true he "called for the abolition of public schools";
- "I'm the one that has saved [Social Security]. I say this constantly--don't turn anybody out on the streets. People we have conditioned--yes, technically we shouldn't have them, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but I would say take care of the people that are dependent on us."
This was after Paul told Jon Stewart that "getting rid of Medicare" is "not high on my agenda. Matter of fact, we've taught a couple of generations to be very dependent on government, and that's not my goal, because I think you have to have a transition period." He also told Stewart he didn't think that "defense" was a service "that the market can deliver better than the government can".
Given all the above, I'm not sure why a radical LP candidate would even want the endorsement of a Ron Paul. (By contrast, all 13 of those Paul heresies are positions that LP reformers/moderates say the LP should be tolerant of.)
For that matter, I didn't hear Ruwart say anything radical in today's debate. In fact, I can't recall any LP candidate speaking up in this election cycle for the radical ideas of individual secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws, or privatizing all streets and pipes. I see candidates willing to sign the Restore04 petition, but I don't see any of them standing up for the most radical positions that were in the 2004 platform, or for the "radical abolitionism" that the Radical Caucus says "Libertarians must always make clear" they stand for. With 2004 platform critic George Phillies recently signing Restore04, and Mike Gravel recently signing The Pledge, it may be that the radicals are just getting played by this crop of candidates.
