There is only one real definition of "libertarian" to my mind, and that is one who lives 100% by non-aggression. Sadly, that was never the real intent of the "Libertarian Party" - or of very many who call themselves libertarians.

They wish to "reduce" government, steal "less" and leave you to deal with your own life "as much as possible," or "within reason." But someone else will define "possible" or reasonable.

Somehow, those don't appear to be the same thing.

I admire much about Mr. Paul. I think he's probably a very good person. But do I want him to run my life? Not a chance. Not from the next room, next door, and most certainly not from Washington DC. Does he really want to run my life? I doubt it, but he demonstrates that he thinks some bunch of people (government) should and must do certain things that will affect my life, whether I agree or not. And that's too close for me.

The really amazing thing about this whole RP mania is the idea that a single person, without the support of congress or the vast bureaucracy and herds of politicians, could actually do anything at all to change this police state into a free country - or anything remotely like it, even if they allowed him to live past the election.

Just who elected all those creepy politicians and hired all those bureaucrats, police, or any of the other parasites? I don't see any mass uprising of people demanding that they all be fired and sent down the road - or hung for crimes against humanity.

The people of this country can't be forced to live free, any more than they can be forced to be happy or prosperous. Those things must spring from a core of personal responsibility, integrity and non-aggression - with their only government that of self control and voluntary association.

How many Americans are ready to live that way and give up the false security and stolen goods their chosen government gives them? I have not met too many...