Reason Writers on Bloggingheads: Matt Welch Talks Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jobs, and The Declaration of Independents With Mark Schmitt

On Tuesday, Aug. 30, I strapped on the headset with the Roosevelt Institute's Mark Schmitt to talk about GOP & libertarian-flavored politics, with a smattering of economic policy thrown in. Go to the Bloggingheads page for shorter breakdowns of the topics, or just click play below.

Comments

[Joey Thomms]

OK, that looks like its gonna be really good. dude.

http://www.anon-stuff.us.tc

[dummy]

go back at look at reagan just look

[dummy]

or milton

[Remainder Bins]

Soon.

[Art-P.O.G.]

I've got a copy. It's amazing.

[dummy]

im still watchin

[sage]

I strapped on the headset

FICKS THIS. You shouldn't be strapping on anything.

[TheSporadical]

Holy Shit, Matt. You have to turn down the level on your mic. I love these conversations. I just think they'd be better if you were not going through a distortion pedal.

[Genuinely Wondering]

Below is the text of a Bill that Paul sponsored H.R.958 -- We the People Act (Introduced in House - IH). I'm actually trying to understand what Constitutional principles he's applying here when he is prohibiting federal courts from ruling on state laws concerning religion. Is he essentially saying that states can abrogate the First Amendment for their citizens if they so choose? Could such a state prohibit the free exercise of religion? Make it mandatory? Here's the text I'm having trouble with:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

[adv4change]

I notice you have a few questions/minor misunderstandings about Johnson's stances. I have a profile of Johnson which, if I do say so myself, is very complete and well-rounded and can be found in one place. I'm sure I don't cover everything, but I put a particular amount of time on his campaign policies and his record as governor of New Mexico.

Please go here: http://www.advocate4change.com/?page_id=161

[Brian]

I think Welch made a good point late in the diavlog about Ron Paul supporters not being "portable". Indeed, I have heard/read many Paulites straightforwardly say that they got into politics for Paul, and they will cease to be active in politics when Paul is gone.

As a libertarian more interested in the long term, practical successes of the movement than spreading philosophy, this troubles me. Personally, I much prefer the relatively pragmatic approach of Johnson and Flake and Rand Paul to the philosophical, purist, vaguely paleo-conservative style of Ron Paul. I worry he and his supporters are needlessly alienating people from our beliefs.