Contrarian versus libertarian?

I think you enjoy being a contrarian here.

Two quick points:

First, the way our country was founded and envisioned was for the federal government to be for the most part an agency that was subservient to the sovereign states - one which merely represented their collective wills and was responsible, subject to the will of the states, to handle issues such as the national defense that benefitted all states.  It was certainly never the intention for the federal government to dictate to the states how they were able to govern their citizens and their territories.

Ron Paul's libertarian views of allowing supreme authority to rest first with the individual, secondly with the state and lastly with the federal government would obviously reverse a long term erosion of freedoms and liberties and result in a much greater freedom for both individuals and states.  Insofar as a issues such as a woman's right to choose, homosexual unions, gun control, taxation and other issues, no doubt that some states might choose to pass laws that some citizens found to be contrary to their beliefs, as well as contrary to the beliefs of Ron Paul, but it is extremely unlikely that ALL states would do so.

Since we have not YET had our right to move and to live wherever we decide taken away by the federal goverment, those who took serious issue with any laws passed in their states would be free to move to those states whose laws they preferred.  No one could possibly have us believe that returning to the visions of individual freedom and liberty that initiated our country would somehow result in 50 tyrannical and oppressive states.  It is not the states, but rather the federal government that has become increasingly tryranical and oppressive.

And secondly, there is much, much more at stake here than just health freedoms, and you seem as clueless about that issue as you are about mainstream vaccination propaganda.  I have to wonder what those who latch onto issues such as his personal beliefs about taking away the entire potential life of an unborn child would think if the one world order crowd of elitists ultimately wins, and forces their declared goals of depopulating the planet down to 500 million servants by such measures as genocide and denying the surviving women the right to even have children by way of forced abortions and sterilizations.  I am sure that seems as fantastical to you as does the idea of nature actually being superior to lab created atrocities, but it does not make it any less true.

At any rate, if a supreme mainstreamer like you questions Ron Paul, then he just has to be the right candidate.

(Personally I think you are just miffed because he has stated that the government should not have the right to make vaccinations mandatory and your posterior still has more bruises from the vaccinations issue than a lifetime series of innoculations would give.)

DQ