But the income tax is probably the most progressive element of our government. Now, his ideal government could probably get by on a taxstream not based on income since his ideal government would really have any programs to fund, but assuming one wants both an active involved government and no income tax, all of the alternatives are likely to be much more regressive.

I'm just glad to have a libertarian getting some air time. Even if he is a kook in the Illuminati/NWO direction of things.

With Libertarian candidates, he's par for the course.

Back to the original point, I'm really glad someone posted a screenshot. Do you suppose the lighting which makes the "bookshelf" appear like a floating, glowing cross happened by accident?


Pulease.


I also think it's a nontroversy, but it's not a "didn't happen." It most certainly was purposeful product placement of the crucifix.

True, but a step up from the guy who ran for California governor whose pet issue was the right to own ferrets as pets.

But I know plenty of libertarians who don't go into the Illuminati/NWO stuff so I'll keep hoping for one of them to somehow get some prominence.

In all the liberal fawning over Ron Paul I've not yet seen anybody notice that he is pro-life and would see Roe v. Wade overturned (he doesn't feel the pro-life agenda should be set at the federal level, though, and would leave it to individual states).

I noticed. He thinks lots of things should be left the states, as the Constitution mandates (albeit, with the giant loophole the federal truck drove thru).


I guess I'm fine with leaving things to the states, since I live in California.

I'm all for states rights, but in reality, our system is set up for the feds to deny the states their rights. The Supreme Court sees pretty much everything as interstate commerce, and anything that isn't the feds threaten to withhold funds and blackmail the states to do what they want.

Somewhat less so as the striking down of the guns-near-schools act would indicate. Also, in their concurrence in Gonzalez v. Carhart, Justices Scalia and Thomas questioned whether Congress actually had the power under the Commerce Clause to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

If states don't want to accept the money that Congress wants to spend under its power to spend for the general welfare, they are free to pay their own way.

I'm speaking in generalities, of course, and I thought that was relatively obvious.

However, the blackmail issue isn't simply an issue of "states paying their own way". The feds over tax citizens, take the money and use the money to blackmail the states. If the feds didn't collect those taxes and left them to the states to collect, rather than taking the money that should belong to the states and using it as leverage to force a certain course of action, then there would not be this issue.

On the Commerce Clause point, I think the overarching generality is that people only care about constitutional niceties like federalism when they want to complain about what the other guy wants to do.