No, we couldn't. What we could use is a more principled and thoroughgoing federalism of the kind advocated by Washington, Hamilton and Madison.
Paul opposes, at least in principle, the subsidies that benefit his own district. I don’t know whether he has ever tried to specifically eliminate those subsidies, but that doesn’t negate the truth of his assertions...
No, it negates the seriousness with which Ron Paul is supposedly to be taken.
Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase wasn’t exactly anti-federalist, yet he remains that philosophy’s greatest proponent.
Jefferson was not an anti-Federalist, but he was adopted by the Anti-Federalists as the best alternative to Hamilton's policies. When actually elected he governed as a pure Madisonian Federalist, much to the chagrin of his more radical supporters.
In any event, we’re a long way from anarchism for goodness sake.
Doesn't mean that Spoonerite anarchism is a great idea. Wanting to destroy the Constitution to make way for no government instead of more government has the same net effect of undermining the Constitution. Spooner was an intellectual bankrupt, beneath contempt.
“No, it negates the seriousness with which Ron Paul is supposedly to be taken.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the CONTENT of what he’s saying. If a murderer tells you murder is wrong, he’s right regardless of what he’s done.