This particular piece is just absurd. Free Trade agreements are by definition the antithesis of free trade and anyone who tries to paint NAFTA as a libertarian enterprise should be ashamed of themselves.

I didn't say that Ron Paul defines libertarianism. It is quite clear however that libertarianism defines Ron Paul.

If you can give me a good reason to object to a man who has for 40 years upheld those principles even when it was very unpopular and politically incorrect to do so, then I'll retract my statement.

Until then I stand by it 100%.

Yes, it is too bad "too much" of you believe in it. Otherwise, we might be able to move on to something better.

Well for some (although not all) of us market anarchists, that's part of the point. We don't believe in the voting system. We believe that voting implicitly reinforces the very institutional framework that allows statism to flourish. In other words, funds that could have been used on the market are diverted towards political ends. Using political power to reduce political power is oxymoronical. And we have a few centuries of history of the attempt to bring about liberty through the voting booth, and empirically speaking it simply hasn't worked.

Libertarians tried this same thing with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagen. In the case of Goldwater, he never stood a chance in hell of winning in the first place (and his foreign policy wasn't particularly libertarian). In the case of Reagen, the Gipper got into power and ended up expanding the state anyways. I have yet to see a good explaination as to how this Ron Paul phenomenon is particularly new in this respect. Reagen ran on many of the same things with respect to domestic policy and failed to achieve any of them.

Even if Ron Paul did manage to get elected, does anyone seriously think that he would be able to wave his magic wand and transform the country into some minarchist utopia, let alone meaningfully slow down the growth of the state? In the face of opposition from both parties, as well as various vested interest groups? Since when has leviathan been whittled down meaningfully through the electoral process, and internally in general? I don't believe I'm being overly pessemistic in being a realist.

This has become a cult of personality to some extent. When the words "Ron Paul" are coming from one's mouth more then "liberty", it is clear that something has gone terribly wrong. When anarchists are actively and enthusiastically involving themselves in the political process and tossing money at a politician, something strange is going on. When LewRockwell.com has been transformed into a Ron Paul cheerleading squad, I cannot help but pause in mystification. And when anyone who is critical of Ron Paul is assumed to be either a liberal or a neocon, I smell fallacy.

LP was founded on the premise that issues matter more than party. If they cannot see the obvious today, they can suck it everytime later somebody says "a third party has no chance". If you vote based on party, the game is already over.

Nobody stated that Ron Paul absolutely defines the libertarian philosophy. You conjured that up on you own.

Ron Paul is the first libertarian leaning presidential candidate in decades to have even a slim chance at being elected.

If one cannot trust Ron Paul to follow through with his stated positions, no one Washington can be trusted.

If a Libertarian will not vote for Ron Paul because he is not "Libertarian" enough, then lets hope Thomas Jefferson is resurrected sometime in the near future, because the beacon of liberty once shining from America’s shores is nearly extinguished.

Let me restate the quote you original referenced in a more realistic manner.
"Anyone who claims they are against Ron Paul and are also "libertarian" are not VERY INTELLIGENT libertarians."

You should quit defending the positions of fools; it only encourages them.

Surely you realize that this statement is absurd. Why would you let Ron Paul solely define the philosophy? Supporting Ron Paul is not a prerequiste to being a libertarian. Libertarianism is a philosophy and a broad political movement, not based on supporting particular politicians. I'm not sure if the people here are aware of this, but a sizable portion of the libertarian movement consists of anarchists (particularly market anarchists).

Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux, Brad Spangler, etc., are not libertarians? They've been libertarians for a long time, and they have been critical of Ron Paul and the political process. Part of their objection is not to Ron Paul himself so much as political participation (I.E. it hasn't worked and never will). But they also have pointed out some grave inconsistancies in Ron Paul's positions.

Some of the statements in this article are off-base. But not all of them. And there's much that wasn't mentioned. Ron Paul's support for a federally funded border fence (which will involve some degree of eminent domain to boot), for example, can hardly be described as "libertarian". And while in rhetoric he supports the state's rights position on abortion, he has actually introduced federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception; this is a far right manuever.

Believe it or not, a sizable portion of life-long libertarians are concerned that Ron Paul's cultural conservatism trumps his libertarianism on key issues. And they are not convinced that putting people in positions of political power, no matter how libertarian they may seem, is a sensible solution to our problems. Nor do they believe that Ron Paul, even if he made it into office, could realistically do much to reduce political power. Nor do they entirely trust that he would not use it for political purposes.