Apparently, like for many glibertarians, the US circa 1890 is the gold standard here.

Considering that peak oil and dealing with global warming at the same time are susposed to push us back to 1890 (at least) isn't it appropriate to have a leader that is stuck in that time?

You touched a nerve. You framed the left / right issue to portray the left leaning totalitarian light types [liberals or "progressives"] as being on a higher moral plain than the right leaning totalitarian light types [big business Republicans and policitally militant Bible Thumpers.] The pest on both groups.

A whole lot of what the U.S. Government does isn't Constitutional. Read the Tenth Amendment. Tell me where progressives line up the Constitution. Show me someone who believes in a "living breathing constitution" and I'll show you an advocate for their version of authoritarianism based on their unwritten rules [that more like guidelines] which they believe they have the right to change as their moods change.

Do the same thing with the right except for the libertarians. You will find that there are a few "conservatives" who believe in the Constitution ... but not many.

BTW, as I see it, Ron Paul is unique. 534 "nays" for Constitutional Government [some profoundly so -- some almost tolerable] with one "yea" -- Ron Paul.

Libertarianism is an ideology where the building block of society is the private family, living in a fenced compound somewhere in the hills. That's also the extent of society - anybody coming close to My Private Property risks lead poisoning. Like Somalia, only without the positive social cohesion of the clan system.

An interesting description with no basis. Casually inflicting "lead poisoning" as a libertarian ideal? BTW, the family is IMO the basis for a healthy society. If kids don't get the right guidance and the appropriate social interaction, the odds aren't good. [Full disclosure: I am single which is not a good thing for the society as a whole -- but it seems to work for me -- and to best of my knowledge I have fathered no children.]

Somehow libertarians think all the rest of the hard won fruits of civilization (public roads, sanitation) are superfluous. They also think they themselves would magically be the ones making decisions in such a society, that somehow they would not be the unfortunate ones under the heel of the local warlord. Funny how that works.

Hardly, the states and local Government can handle local infrastructure and the Commerce Clause as origninally intended can pretty much handle the rest. Note that there are references to "post roads" and perhap other public works in the Constitution. Warlords? Where did that come from?

Privatize all public works? I honestly don't see the point, but if you do don't let the Government stand behind them with rules that guarantee monoply status and a lack of accountability.

BTW, imperialism isn't in the Constitution either ... and Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of U.S. involvement in Iraq in particular and foreing military adventures in general unlike progressive like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ and [your are going to hate this] George W. Bush [a proponent of the Medicare drug benefit, the current illegal immigration amnesty in lockstep with Ted Kennedy, and all maner of political pork.]

Finally, Ron Paul may oppose the income tax, but it is Constitutional ... explictly so as an amemndent to the U.S. Constituion [leaving aside some ratification controversies that probably don't have much merit].

Very well put!

I sometimes wish that Libertarians would get their way and establish their own state. It wouldn't take long for them to realise that "the government thingy" might be a good idea after all...

Incidentally, there's a hacker proverb that says "Those who don't know Unix are doomed to reinvent it; poorly". Substitute "Unix" by "government" and you get equally wise words.