Reposting a comment I made on Mark Shea's blog:
I think there’s a lot to like in Ron Paul’s non-interventionism, anti-federalism and defense of civil liberties.
But what ultimately puts me off the bus is the naive faith that he and his Mises Institute buddies have in the so-called free market. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is more than a little merit in the charge that libertarianism is apologetics for big corporations.
Also, while they’re strong in opposing the central bank, they don’t seem to be as strong as the distributists and social credit theorists when it comes to the issues of debt and the creation of money through fractional reserve banking.
Their preferred remedy for the financial crisis, allowing the debtors to default and the creditors to take their losses, would only result in most of the real assets falling into the hands of those with money to spend (because they have the power to create it out of thin air.)
They like to pose as benefactors of the community, like the Bailey Building and Loan Association, but I think that their policies are actually more akin to those of old man Potter.
So while I can’t vote for the warmonger Santorum, I can’t bring myself to support Ron Paul either. I’m probably going to have to sit this one out.