"The isolationist streak of Libertarianism doesn't appeal to me at all.  Hence, I really don't care for Ron Paul (and he's wrong on some of his Constitutional arguements).  I've travelled enough to know that our world will only become more interdependent.  We would be well advised to support and manage this change rather than running from it.  Historically, isolationism doesn't work."

Funny you should say that.  I have heard lots of people make the claim that Ron Paul is an isolationist, but I've also heard him repeatedly say he is not.  So I guess the distinction is, he doesn't want brute force, but rather trade, to be the method by which America engages the world, and many interpret this as an isolationist stance.  (That's not to say that some of his supporters might not be isolationists themselves.)

I would be curious to know which Constitutional arguments you are referring to, and in what way you feel he's wrong.

My way of looking at the things he proposes is to boil it down to a fairly simple issue:  either something is, or it is not, provided for in the Constitution.  If it is, then the government can do it; if it is not, then government cannot do that and must either a) refrain from doing that or b) change the constitution.  My problem with the system is that it is set up to allow the government to ignore the restraints placed upon it by the constitution, and I agree with humorist PJ O'Roarke that handing over money and power to the government is a lot like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys.

Herring405