Ron Paul did not start out with the question of how to make America safer and then craft a policy around that. He begins with a Libertarian principle (non-aggression) and then tries to explain how that will work to make America safer.

He is principled and I have been around libertarianism long enough to understand the idea. In general a hawkish (L)ibertarian is a contradiction in terms.

Libertarianism is not about creating a social utopia. That is what collectivists try to do. It is about individual rights. The old saying is “your rights stop at my nose”.

Some problems arise from this. 9/11 was clearly an act of aggresion and those who were victimized certainly have the right of reprisal. If the threat is continuing (the fist is heading right for the nose) then there is probably also a right.

But at the same time some guy in Iowa who thinks it is all nonsense cannot be forced to send his property (taxes) or in other ways be forced to do anything. Hence Ron’s famous (and laughable) Letters of Marque and Reprisal suggestion. Problem is the resonse is too weak. We had a bounty out for years on Osama’s head but it took years of effort and a Navy Seal team to bring him down.

The second problem is that evil bad guys try to hide their intentions. The question of wheather the fist is approaching nose or not must often be based on probabilities rather than clear evidence.

The Iranian nuke question is a good example of this problem. Ron in this case screws up again by chosing the fantasy that Iran is only reacting to our aggression. He postulates that he understands the motive for the fist in the first place which he cannot. In reality he is only making the facts fit the theory which was a big Neocon problem.

What he would be saying if he were honest is “this is what I believe and to heck with consequences” but that is not possible for a real politician so he does not talk about principles and brings out a crystal ball.