I understand the desire for "intellectual consistency," but I would offer that politics isn't a science; philosophy has not given us an intellectually consistent justice system. Our laws are defined by our values (which change), and in many cases what is just and unjust comes down to the decision of one (or 12) judge or justice, trying to do his or her best to determine what is right for the individual, and for the society.

Tobacco and alcohol are legal because they became social norms before we properly understood their harms. Marijuana, prostitution, and heroine remain illegal because the majority of Americans believe that allowing their use would be detrimental to our society. More women would be subjected to sex slavery and exploitation. More drivers would be killed by people under the influence of marijuana. More babies would be born deformed because of their mother's use of cheaper, safer, more easily available heroine. Most Americans disagree that the use of things this destructive only has an effect on those who use them.

I doubt "most of our aid currently goes to propping up dictators." Certainly we do this, but I think it's primarily through military spending, and I know for a fact a large portion of our foreign aid is used to fight aids. The amount of foreign aid we spend ($25 billion) is a tiny fraction of our debt, our deficit, our GDP, and our government's income. Eliminating it completely wouldn't make a dent in the deficit or the debt. And for what it's worth, as a percentage of government income or GDP, the U.S. is one of the stingiest of the industrialized nations on the planet. I'm all for getting the most out of our money, but if we really want to solve our debt problem, foreign aid is a footnote to the real problems: the entitlements.

Paul's answer of course is to turn them into block grants to states. I'm ok with that, except that it has very little chance of ever making it through Congress. And this is one of my biggest problems with Libertarians like Paul: their solutions aren't workable. In order to fix a societal problem in a democracy, you must convince enough of its people that your solution is the right one. Americans, through their representatives, will never agree to gut Medicare like Libertarians would love to do. Therefore, gutting Medicare is not a solution.

For what it's worth, I agree with him about de-criminalizing prostitution and heroine. I wish we had more intellectual consistency in our laws. If tobacco and alcohol are legal, why isn't marijuana? Is the role of the government to stop us from doing stupid things to ourselves? It's one thing when our actions affect other people (driving high for example) but I'm not sure it's the government's job to stop me from risking my own life base-jumping if I want to.

I'd like for us to be able to do more protecting of innocent people abroad, but most of our aid currently goes to propping up dictators and when we're trillions in debt, I think we need to fix our issues here first.

You're totally right about the meetup data not being representative of course. I just found it interesting. 🙂

Also I think Mike's right, you're overestimating Ron's popularity. Even the Tea Party, which presents itself as the champion of limited government, has not rallied around Paul. He will never be able to win over a majority of the Republican party, much less the general election. But it's great that he has done as well as he has, to provide a platform for his out-of-the-box ideas.

P.S. Being a researcher funded by the NSF, using government services such as NOAA on a daily basis, and having little faith in capitalism to drive responsible, ethical behavior: I have a lot of trouble getting behind a candidate who's main view is "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."