I keep hearing from libertarian websites (sometimes even from big-name libertarians) that Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Bob Barr. Now, I agree with most libertarian criticisms of Barr, who has undoubtedly said some very stupid things and made some very stupid moves during his campaign. He also has a terrible record and past.
But is it really true that the far-right paleocon Baldwin is "more libertarian" than Barr? Sorry, but the answer is no.
Which candidate brags about taking the least libertarian stance on immigration out of all the candidates of the race? Baldwin.
Which candidate openly endorses protectionist measures? Baldwin.
Which candidate wants the government to ban gambling? Baldwin.
Which candidate advocates a national ban on abortion? Baldwin.
Which candidate opposes gays in the military? Baldwin.
Which candidate praises Jerry Falwell? Baldwin.
Which candidate is running on a platform of theocracy? Baldwin.
Even on the war on drugs, Barr is better than Baldwin. (Neither will flat-out legalize all drugs, but at least Barr wants to divert non-violent offendors from prisons and encourage private alternatives.)
Barr, of course, is a statist with a horrible record and this post is not meant to praise him. But is it really true that Chuck Baldwin is "more libertarian" than Barr, as the rightwing paleolibertarians insist? Nope, not really.
Just because someone is a supporter of Ron Paul does NOT make him a libertarian.