What I'm saying is that historically speaking, in Iowa they pick corn while in New Hampshire they pick presidents.

What I meant about character is that in hillbilly states like Iowa, they fall for an easy smile and empty promises.

Bill Clinton scored 3% in Iowa in '92 while Carter also lost it and so did Bush Sr. even while he was an incumbent.

Iowa is the beginning of a marathon for the Republican Party while the Democrats are now ready to shore things up on Tuesday.

There are so many variables at play now with conservatives. Huckabee is going to get the religious wing while McCain gets the establishment wing and Paul picks up the Independent and disenfranchised wing.

Thompson doesn't even have staff and volunteers in the next few states while Paul is now opening offices in the February states. Thompson's support will get picked up by McCain.

Giuliani is a joke while Romney will fall now, too.

SuperTuesday to me will be between Huckabee and McCain and Paul, and if Obama has it by then, you'll see more Independent voters swaying towards Ron Paul.

Yeah, a lot has to go right for Paul, but he'll be alive and will have double digit support on Super Tuesday while Giuliani and Romney and Thompson and Duncan donuts are the casualties.

Ron Paul remains the candidate with the most principled integrity out of the bunch.

And by the way, Fred Thompson and John McCain have 1 more delegate now than Paul does. Not exactly a huge success for those two "frontrunners".

And Ron Paul only has 2 more delegates than I have.

And I'm not even running.

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

You seem to forget the rest of the libertarian argument, or perhaps you just don't know. I don't know why you left it out, but at any rate, I am here to clarify.

Hardcore, conservitive, libertarians like me do not want to see and end to government or police protection. We want to see an end to a COERCIVE governemnt and police protection. Unlike virtually everyone else, we recognize that ANY monopoly (and I use the term "monopoly" classic, or Austrian sense) is bad. A monopoly will become inefficent, charge a monopoly price, and be generally wasteful.

So, it is not cops-in-general that we want to do away with, it is state (not as in Georgia or Alabama, I mean any coercive government) cops that we do not like. Allowing private companies to do things will ALWAYS lead to greater efficency.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

And let's not forget what happens once they find the guy who committed a crime against you. Instead of forcing a robber to give you money back, he goes to prision where the initial victim is forced to support him through taxes.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

Yeah, take one narrow set of viewpoints, find similarities between two groups of people, and suddenly, they are alike in all respects. When was the last time there was a move in the Democratic party to cut taxes, spending, money creation through the federal reserve, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terrorism, welfare, government control of social security, etc, etc? I think that you will find that it is the Republicans who have much in common with the Democrats, not the libertarians. After all, democrats love to spend, and, under Republican rule, spending has increased. Neither party is against the central bank.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

What a dumb thing to say. No one is calling you a front-runner. No one is acting as if you have a chance to win.

What a pathetic attempt to discredit Paul.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

So you'd feel a lot safer if Blackwater Security was patrolling your city instead of the local PD?

Put the dogma aside, there are things that the government can do far more efficiently than the private sector. The problem with the government we have is that the control mechanism was designed in 1789, and hasn't been updated.
What business model survives from the 18th century?

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Ron Paul will do better in New Hampshire than he will in any other state.
New Hampshire is the most conservative state in the union, low tax, small government, mind your own business conservative, not Jesus and the Crusade against Terror and Abortion Conservative.
So ROn Paul will peak there, because the big business interests that fund the Republican party have no interest in Ron Paul's kind of conservatism.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

That's a very scary thought. Given our acceptance of government removing constitutional rights to protect us, they'd probably receive their usual immunity status.

Other than the majority of belief systems based on dogma? None.

The whole Blackwater thing is not a failing of the private sector. Sure, Blackwater was a private company. But they are paid by the government, they do almost entierly government work, the get a lot of no-bid contracts. In essence, they are a government institution. They do not have to worry about profit margins because they are paid by the government and the government does not have to worry about profit margins. Do you have an example of a private security firm, that does not recieve a huge majority of money from the government that does the same things as Blackwater? I wouldn't think so. It would not be a very profitable decision to go into a country and attack it.

The Blackwater lesson is not that private security does not work, the lesson is that government security does not work.



Like what? And why can government do these things better? And do you have any example of government doing things better?
I am no real business expert, so I don't really know what business models existed during the 18th Century. I would imagine that there are not too many business models that still exist, though. But, anyway, I don't really get your point.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

US domestic private security is government regulated, generally at the state and muni levels. While service demands are showing steady growth, it's still a sub-percentage of official LE. If demand for private security suddenly escalates regulation and taxation will be right along with it, step by step. At the point it becomes a major factor in policing the populace it'll be subjected to the same conditions you describe as Blackwater's government windfall, gross government corruption and fiscal irresponsibility at high levels. For what it is, a reactive service, I prefer being able to see the cops cost up to the funding level and where that money comes from. And have them know that.

Everything that the government does would be done more efficiently if done by private companies assuming that competition existed. The problem is that not everything is a matter of efficiency.

Governmnet will have no part in private security. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Maybe you can explain differently because I really don't get what you are saying. I'm sorry.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address