atlas judged

It's during moments such as this that I have trouble with what passes for mainstream libertarianism these days.

The newest announced Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, wasted no time inserting himself into the international scandal involving the arrest of the head of the International Monetary Fund on sexual assault charges. 

The 12-term Texas Republican representative is no friend of large financial institutions, be it the IMF or the Federal Reserve. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday" 48 hours after announcing his candidacy, Paul sought to paint the removal of Dominique Strauss-Kahn from a departing international flight and his arrest on suspicion of attempted rape of a Manhattan hotel maid as the kinds of high-handed things to be expected of such authorities.  

"These are the kinds of people who are running the IMF," Paul told Chris Wallace, "and we want to turn the world's finances and the control of the money supply [over] to them?"

My problem is quite simple: if you believe that the intervention of the state leads to a subjugation of the capable by the ineffectual, then morality has no place in your world-view. In short, it shouldn't matter whether Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a sexual predator or not, because the institution he heads distorts and usurps the natural order of things.

But if there is a better candidate to run the IMF, then you're not in favor of its abolition -- you're favor of its reform.

You can't say the state is the source of all evil, except in cases where you like the rules or the individuals who happen to be in charge. Libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition.

[ToTT]