well, I recognize that Paul’s ‘by the consitution’ slogan is nearly impossible to interpret literally and there is considerable debate, even amongst libertarians, about what exactly that means. However, if you consider it as a spectrum, with completely ignoring the constition on one side and this literal interpretation on the other, he is much closer to the literal than any modern American politician.
However, another example of the point you raise is with ‘judicial review’, funny enough asked by Hewit in that same interview with Paul about L&M. Judicial review, of course, is not in the constition, but came about, I believe, as Marbury vs Madison. I think the question caught Paul a bit off gaurd and I believe he had to admit he would keep judicial review...
I’m still not convinced of the folly of the L&M. I think we’d need to examine the provisions of those treaties and I’d bet the US could opt out of just those parts, or just ignore them w/out too much trouble or political hay.
The idea makes sense from an ideolgoical point of view, because although conservatives (generally) agree that government is incompetant w/ domestic issues, libertarians believe government is also incompetant in foreign policy and even the military. The private sector, individual Americans, can do it better.
And I’ve found the opposite, the closer I look at Paul’s various positions, the more merit I have found in them. Of course, I don’t agree with many too, but most of them yes.
I’ve always thought that the libertarian desire for LMR was based mostly on ideological grounds. I’m not sure that this idea is even a Ron Paul original. I remember an article posted here on Free Republic about the same time Ron introduced his Act espousing the same idea. The article was by Browne. Which came first? Don’t know. But I do think there are those of the libertarian persuasion who think the private sector would do a better job.
I think the appeal of privitizing the WOT, has two basic appeals to libertarians. First, as you point out, they think it would be more effective. Second, they would like to reduce the power of the state and they that includes the military.
There are several problems with private militaries that I think are too readily dismissed by libertarians.
First, I think most of them simply have no idea of what a military is or what an effective military requires. Too often I libertarians argue for a return to a militia based system. I think too few libertarians have the grasp of military history to know just how badly most militias fare in combat with regular forces. Think amateur football teams playing professionals and you get the picture. Sure amateurs win sometimes but most times they get destroyed. When was the last time the college all stars beat the pro team?
Second, I’m afraid that privitizing the military might be one of those ‘be careful what you asked for’ thingies. One of the classical problems with mercenary armies is the difficulty of maintaining control. How do you keep them in check and not allow them to go ‘rogue’? Granted, you have a similar problem with keeping the state in check and keeping it from going rogue too. Still with the state in control of the military, you only have one military to worry about and not a couple of dozen. You pick your poison and take your chances as they say.
Which brings us to judicial review. The problem with doing away with judicial review is who determines what the Constitution says? Even if one throws out the concept of the ‘living Constitution’, a concept I think should have a stake driven through it’s heart, you still have to have one authority to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Oh, I know some say that the words are plain for everyone to read and understand. But different people can read the same words and find different ‘understandings’. I simply don’t see how you get around judicial review.
Opt out of parts? Sure, that’s done all the time with Treaties. States sign treaties and submit a document called, I believe, an ‘understanding’ which simply states that this state or that ‘understands’ a certain meaning to a certain part of a treaty or they simply say we agree with all the treaty except...
The problem with opting out is this. And, this applies to many of Ron Paul’s ideas, is it’s very difficult to explain in simple words why it is necessary. I guess you’ve noticed that Ron Paul has difficulties in the debates in conveying parts of his message. I don’t blame him for that because a 30 second segment is not how you explain some of his ideas. The unfortunate part is that unless they can be explained quickly and concisely, they will be demaguaged unmercifully. I supplied an example (‘President Ron Paul has decided that we are going to withdraw from the Hague and Geneva Conventions so he can hire privateers to conduct military operations’) Stuff like that will get you killed in a Presidential Campaign.