Originally Posted by stephanie
I don't see knee jerk preference for state power over federal power as anti authority. I think it's merely an issue of who has the authority, sometimes.
Now, clearly, Paul himself is in some sense part of the libertarian movement, so I think he comes more from the anti-government side (although TS is right that anti gov sometimes just opens the door for more power to be exercised by private authority). My problem with Paul and his wing of the libertarians is that they've decided, at least in the past, that getting their views in power requires a coalition with others who are anti federal power for quite different reasons and often not anti authoritarian ones. (Or, sure, anti authoritarian in the sense of "how dare the gov't interfere with our right to discrimination." Because of the past exercise of federal power, I actually don't see those folks as much of a threat, it is true. But they are also combined with the whole wing of nutty conspiracy stuff which bothers me. And that's perhaps one place where you and I are just dramatically opposed in how we see things, because I don't see anti-authoritarianism as all good. It scares me when it gets focused on conspiracy theories and so on, whether they be the ones that the left is more prone to or the ones the right are more prone to.)
I agree with Glenn Loury, that the right to discriminate is a serious argument for liberty that should be addressed with more argument rather then just saying someone is bigot who believes that a racist (or sexist) person should have a right to exercise their bigotry in who they choose to do business with.
I pretty much agree with everything else you said here. Paul, if not a conspiracy theorist himself, (I believe he is)
, panders to them too much for my taste. If he was the Republican nominee, I'd have to vote for a Dem for president for the first time in my life.