DISQUS

Given geographic "affirmative action" in elite colleges, it is likely pretty easy to get into an elite college from Alaska. One would probably just have to get into the 25-75% on the numbers, without worrying about extracurriculars, high school, or interesting life story.

"We will be so far from the Orange Line."

It's obvious that the MFA is a front. You two are being sent as an advance team to supervise the building of the NAFTA Superhighway.

There is no such thing as non-discretionary defense spending.

Discretionary spending depends on the budget being passed every year. Non-discretionary spending will be funded out of payroll taxes unless the Congress changes the law. It is perhaps misnamed, even though in truth there won't be any decrease in the non-discretionary spending unless the shit really hits the fan.

So, that's like one thing out of a long list of grievances for one tiny section of the country . I don't think there'd have been a revolution if the Crown had levied taxes on Rhode Island alone.

How would it be not legitimate? Vis a vis the U.S. government today, what does it do that compares to the list of grievances given against the British government in 1776.

Oh, but don't you know, econ PhDs can get JDs, and then become law professors, whose starting pay is like four times as much as humanities professors.

Perhaps he is an immigrant. A manservant from abroad who is taking the job of an American who could be her chauffeur. That is the dream of the Cosmotarian-Kochtopoid Axis.

Williard James G. Wilkinson, you are no Cosmostatist. A cosmostatist would be upset that they aren't wearing helmets and that they are using hydrocarbons. HYDROCARBONS!

So when are you turning in your resignation to the STATO institute and moving to Auburn, hmmmm?

Well, I think part of the problem with "constitutional fetishism" is that some of Paul's positions run contrary to what is in the Constitution, namely, birthright citizenship and the income tax. Further, the Constitution is not really a libertarian document, and it is doubtful that a lot of the interpretations that libertarians want for it would ever really hold up in an honest court.

Originalism as a method of Constitutional interpretation is so fraught with difficulties that it is almost useless. Further, what do you do if the Constitution turns out to not support your libertarian position? And don't tell me that it always would. A document that explicitly contemplates owning people is not libertarian.