Some radical libertarians believe in not even having a state military. Paul doesn’t fall under this, he believes a state military should exist for the national defense. I think if the US was attacked by another nation he would favor full retaliation by the US military.
However, since 9/11 was not precepitated by a state (as far as we know), but by a stateless entity, Paul thought that private rebuttal would be appropriate and that the risk of neverending intervention by the state plus the monetary cost would edge out in the cost benefit ratio.
I also agree on the difficulty in explaining some of these complex and out of mainstream theories, certainly not sound bite stuff, aka the ‘blowback’ concept in one of the debates. This may be why Paul has such devoted followers, even if somewhat small in number, because they find these non politician answers both refreshing and valid.
“However, since 9/11 was not precepitated by a state (as far as we know), but by a stateless entity, Paul thought that private rebuttal would be appropriate and that the risk of neverending intervention by the state plus the monetary cost would edge out in the cost benefit ratio.”
The fact remains that these ‘stateless entities’ could not flourish without the cooperation of states. Or, at least states without the power to crush the ‘stateless entities’ within.
“This may be why Paul has such devoted followers, even if somewhat small in number, because they find these non politician answers both refreshing and valid.”
Any time a politician tells you that he is not a politician, that his actions are based upon core principals, you can be sure he is lying through his teeth. Ron Paul is a politician too. He just focuses on a different constituency. I fully believe he takes many of the positions he takes as ‘red-meat’ for that small and vocal community.