You repeat the infantile argument of some on the far right that taxation is theft, however that argument hardly helps Paul since he does not oppose all taxation, even at the federal level. In a society organized under Paul’s ideas we very well could wind up with higher taxes if these are imposed by a state or local unit of government.

What you advocate is far from a free country. One of the necessary characteristics of a free country is that there are limitations on the power of government. This must apply nation wide, not only to those areas which vote to respect Constitutional liberties. When you (and Ron Paul) deny this you are setting us up for dictatorship. This is why so many neo-Nazis support Paul. They realize that Paul’s ideas on states rights would be the easiest way for them to bring fascism to much of America.

What you advocate is hardly what I, or most people, would see as a free society. We wish to have a free country, not a country such what you advocate which would turn into pockets of freedom along with many unfree areas. Most people do not want a country where we have to move just because a majority in an area votes to limit our Constitutional freedoms. While not perfect, enforcing the right to vote for all is working and is hardly analogous to the situation in Iraq. Regardless, we must support such basic liberties as the right to vote throughout the country. There is a huge difference between defending such rights in our own country as opposed to trying to impose a government upon a foreign country such as Iraq.

Perhaps your attitude demonstrates why much of Paul’s support comes from students. Those of us who have established businesses, or are working, in the real world, realize what an absurd idea this is. It would hardly be a free country if we face the risk of having to give up our businesses, and homes, because of the results of a state or local election. Even most students will see how anti-freedom and undesirable such a situation is. Students looking at job offers upon graduation should be able to choose jobs without having to be concerned whether the job is in an area which respects Constitutional liberties. For freedom to really flourish, such basic liberties must be nation wide and not be placed at the whim of local voters.

State autonomy is the only way in which individuals can be guaranteed the right of freedom in the long run. Power corrupts. Federal uniform guaratee of rights is guaranteed to foster abuses in the long run. For example, is uniform education a right? (the flip side of the same coin: the right to rob other parents to educate my kids); is healthcare a right? (flip side: the right to rob other taxpayers to pay for my medical expenses). Such differences in opinions have to be worked in real life by trial and errors. States have to be allowed to try different approahces, and people can vote with their feet! Think of government services as a market place, multiple competing states make for a competitive market place, whereas a uniform federal government is inevitably a monopoly infested with abuses. Yes, Jim Crow laws would be deplorable . . . and speaking as a member of an ethnic minority, I may indeed find some parts of the country off-limit to myself; I simply would not go there. The racists would just have to stew in their own venom without benefiting from my economic contribution. There are plenty parts of the world that I’m sure that none of us here would deign to spend our vacation dollars in. The bigots will just have to find the errors of their ways at their own expense. Enforcing enlightenment in the Jim Crow country through federal arms is fundamentally little different from trying to enforce democracy in Iraq: the local people will be turned off, and the administrators that federal government put in place to enforce enlightenment would inevitably be liable to corruption (power corrupts).

The equal treatment clause in the Constitution already stipulates that no State shall treat citizens of other states residing within its borders differently from its own citizens. That’s all it takes to start the lively voting-with-feet process that made Europe develop modernity long before other centers of civilization that were mired in centralized governments.

The only thing I’d suggest changing would be absolving individual States of the duty to extradite individuals who faces charges of having committed acts that are non-crimes in its own borders. Likewise, no obligation to return non-properties within its own borders. That would have avoided the deplorable Dred-Scott decision. Think about it, in this way, each state would be able to experiment on its drug policies, healthcare policies, education policies, immigration policies, etc. and find out what really works. IMHO, the egregiously heavy handed government approaches would be out-competed rapidly, and bringing much greater freedom to the individuals than we have today. When individuals can pick and choose from 50 different governments, that’s when personal freedom will really flourish.