The Ron Paul Libertarian Myth as to the theory of Prior Restraint through regulation on business.
For those of you that watch and listen to Ron Paul, he sounds about as too good to be true as Obama has turned out to be. As a Republican selling himself as a Libertarian, with all that personal freedom con job, Paul is simply fooling the public.
He is not into the Federal Government deciding what freedom and civil rights mean according to the Constitution because it is a one size fits all deal that leaves the states rights out of the equation. So, basically, his intention is to take all that nasty stuff the central government does to us and leave it to the states. What good would that do? Theoretically, a state could then reintroduce segregation and we could have endless personal liberty issues different in every state. Also, his pitch is disingenuous in that much of what he proposes as to personal liberty will never fly under the Republican flag, but that's another matter.
All that should give us cause for concern, but far beyond those issues is what he calls the threat against business, over regulation. His claim is that regulations on Corporations and business in general amounts to "Prior Restraint", and so is unconstitutional.
The theory of prior restraint in this context means that we cannot assume business people will be bad so regulations are not needed. I can't see how we can say there has been no prior wrong doing when we are in this economic mess. It is simply because much of what went down was legal. There was no prior restraint. That is like saying laws against murder is prior restraint. So, when there is a murder it can't be prosecuted because it was actually legal. According to Paul, what has gone down on Wall Street that has crippled the national and world economies can not be regulated to avert that outcome because it would be prior restraint. That is a Catch 22 situation.
I could go further, but my goal is for the reader to take the simplicity of my argument and run it through their own mind.