I'm not very familiar with libertarian view of state's rights, can you elaborate in another post? What exactly is the role of states if you are saying there is no such thing as state's rights? I do agree that individuals certainly do have the right to not have religious views imposed on them, so now I'm curious how the states rights vs. individualism would work in other situations. I'm sort of new to libertarian principles so I'm curious.

Now I'm going to have to go re-read the 14th amendment.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that Ron Paul is not a libertarian (he did after all vote for the Partial Birth Abortion Act – embracing the New Deal version of the Commerce Clause), and while I share your views on the 14th Amendment (although I wouldn't use the term incorporation but that may be semantics), I'm not sure our appreciation for the 14th Amendment is universally embraced by libertarians.

There are libertarians who oppose the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it further centralizes federal power against the states, especially with respect to Section 5 of the amendment. I read this paper some time ago which covers this topic. For me to comment on this, I'd have to re-read it. It was interesting at the time I read it but I wasn't necessarily persuaded by the argument. It may be because I read it shortly after reading Elizabeth Price Foley's Liberty for All, where one of her arguments was that the original Bill of Rights (at least some provisions) did in fact apply to the states (despite Justice Marshall's opinion in Barron).

I'm not suggesting that even those libertarians would agree with Ron Paul because they most certainly would not. They would advocate protecting liberty at a localized level. Admittedly, this applies to the more hardcore libertarians but I thought I'd make the point.

Tony, I couldn't agree with you more.