In the comments section of the Union Leader piece on Ron Paul is this semi-literate comment by Bob Letourneau, who does not identify himself as the New Hampshire state senator who has endorsed that great champion of liberty and leader of men, Mitt Romney:

“Michael [another commenter] has it correct. this man would create chaos. Basically he is using the republican party as his spring board. Then he tries to bring together anti war folks with anti tax folks with anti government folks, have I left anyone out? No one like war, everyone hates taxes, but reasonable people know that sometimes you have to defend your country and some how you have to pay for government services that just about everyone demands. And governments first responsibility is police and fire proctection, support your first responders. Do you remember 9-11? these folks gave their very lives for the proctection of our citizens, good grief! There are other candidates in this race that have a reasonable approch to government pick one of them and move forward…”

Of the zillion inanities here, let’s simply consider that the federal income tax, which Ron Paul proposes to abolish, doesn’t pay for local police and fire protection. Also, I guess to be a Mitt Romney supporter you have to believe that the Iraq war was necessary to “defend the country”; likewise, you can seriously look at the Middle East after nearly two Bush terms and say that Ron Paul would create chaos.

You can have this genius, Mitt.

(UPDATE: Letourneau’s comment has mysteriously disappeared.)

The Best of Tom Woods

Anthony, what struck me about that passage is the sheer hackery it evinces. The “blame-America” nonsense is typical of mainstream political idiocy, and yet a libertarian — you know, someone who’s supposed to be a little skeptical of dumb-guy political slogans — is going to repeat it with a straight face? Who are these people?

Why does “serious political engagement” have to involve going along with the establishment on war? You’re not really being “serious,” I guess, unless you’re looking for a country to bomb, or unless you’re repeating propaganda that the rest of the world cannot believe some of our people are still simple enough to buy into — six freaking years after 9/11. And both parties already favor interventionism abroad. Why would it be such an unspeakable tragedy if pro-war “libertarians” stayed out of “serious political engagement”? Who needs them anyway? Is the establishment not sufficiently pro-war for this guy as it is?

Oh, and why is it assumed that “young people with classical liberal instincts” will be turned off by an antiwar posture in the first place, or will find it odd or surprising? Has the guy never heard of Richard Cobden? (Nevermind; I know the answer.)

The Best of Tom Woods