No use crying over banned milk?
But only Paul has introduced a bill to legalize unpasteurized milk.
No, he introduced a bill to end federal regulation of unpasteurized milk. There’s a difference.
Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to states that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.
So we see, yet again, that Paul does not love liberty. He merely hates Congress. No libertarian would suggest that banning unpasteurized milk is perfectly hunky-dory at the state level, just not at the federal level. Property rights and economic substantive due process either exist or they don’t, either are guaranteed by the Constitution or are not (including that pesky Fourteenth Amendment that Paul in another context so insolently dismissed yesterday as “wasn’t in the original Constitution”).
Of course, the 2008 election will not be decided on the issue of raw milk. Neither does the fate of raw milk rise to the level of domestic spying, preemptive war, same-sex marriage (which Paul actively opposes), jurisdiction-stripping of federal judges (which Paul actvely supports) or even compulsory vaccinations in his home state of Texas. But it illustrates nicely the key philosophical point that the Paulbearers refuse to tackle: Ron Paul is simply not a libertarian.
If you want to argue that an anti-federalist is better than “business as usual,” then fine. But please stop with the “Ron Paul is a libertarian” idiocy.
(Via Hit & Run).
- A Question for Ron Paul
- Is Ron Paul Being “Censored” by RedState?
- This is Your Ron Paul on Drugs…
- “Republican Presidential Candidate” Quote of the Day
- Ron Paul and the L-Word
Filed under: Uncategorized