Rand Paul Distances Himself From Libertarianism

During his quixotic 2008 presidential campaign, I always assumed that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), despite his protestations to the contrary, was content with injecting non-interventionism, Federal Reserve bashing, and sound money policies into the Republican debates, knowing that his chances of ending up in the White House were vanishingly small. Running for a Senate seat in Kentucky, and with a decent chance of victory, Paul's son Rand is slinking away from his libertarian roots, after the shellacking he took for suggesting that private business should be free to do (or not do) business with whomever they chose (there is much more to the argument than my incomplete summary, so if you are unfamiliar with the debate, you can start here). In the wake of the controversy, Paul's seemingly insurmountable 25 point lead over Democratic opponent Jack Conway has shrunk to an uncomfortable eight points.

Now, according to the AP, Paul is underscoring his differences with libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.

Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.

The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn't fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.

"Instead of maybe saying we're never anywhere overseas, I say we need to be more judicious in where we are, in that I don't think we can afford to be everywhere all the time," Paul said. "But it also doesn't mean that we never intervene and that we can allow people to attack us."

More here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hockey Guy||

    What? A politician has been misrepresenting himself I'm shocked, shocked.

  • Atanarjuat||

    At least with regard to abortion, I don't believe he has ever changed his views, so it's not accurate to say he misrepresented himself.

  • ||

    He hasn't changed his views on the war either. He's been saying he's more of a traditional conservative than his father since the campaign began, it's just that few people chose to listen.

  • zoltan||

    As long as the NYT can paint some imagined demon with the scarlet L they'll use it, whether it fits or not (see: Glenn Beck).

  • Some Guy||

    No, Glenn Beck paints himself with that L, and it pisses me off to no end that people believe him.

  • ||

    Yeah, on the other hand: some public exposure is better than no exposure (re: Road to Serfdom). On an additional point, the left already have their own preconceived notion of libertarianism, they won't change their mind with or without Glenn Beck...

  • Some Guy||

    People like Glenn Beck who use libertarian language to push their corporate welfare and imperial foreign policy probably have a lot to do with why they think that.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    If there's one thing Glenn Beck consistently advocates on his show, it's corporate welfare. The man loves him some TARP!

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    "If there's one thing Glenn Beck consistently advocates on his show, it's corporate welfare. The man loves him some TARP!"

    Sarcasm, yes? Beck was not a TARP advocator.

  • Some Guy||

    Sarcasm, yes? Beck was not a TARP advocator.

    Yes he was. He switched sides after it passed, which means nothing to me.

  • ||

    > (re: Road to Serfdom)

    If the road to serfdom is a privatized toll road, would libertarians be in favor of it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Anonymous,

    If the road to serfdom is a privatized toll road, would libertarians be in favor of it?

    In favor of what? The road to serfdom? The road itself? The fact that it is private? The fact that it charges a toll?

  • Eric H||

    Yes, because then people would be free to choose not to take it, rather than having to subsidize it with tax money.

  • ||

    *plugs ears*

    LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

    (actually, facepalming myself till I can't be distinguished from a dinner plate.)

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Basically, he's more of a libertarian than about 90% of Republicans, and more of a conservative than about 90% of the commenters at reason.com.

  • x,y||

    People keep filling the Rand vessel with his father. He's not, and I'm not even sure he's close enough to being libertarin to warrant our support.

  • Yonemoto||

    i think a good rule of thumb is: Is he more than halfway towards your ideal than the other guy.

    It was true for trey greyson. Still true for jack conway.

  • ||

    Mmmmmm, voting for the lesser evil, delicious.

    How's that worked out for us?

  • Chthulu: why settle for less?||

    Uh... Most of you retards who didn't go third party voted for the Dimrats in this last election. So what's "lesser" about the evil of giving those socialists a (temporarily) filibuster-proof majority?

    Can't blame Rand for not wanting anything to do with likes of some of you treasonous jackasses, really...

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    What was true for Greyson? That he's more than halfway toward the libertarian ideal? You must not live in Kentucky, because nearly every radio ad Greyson ran was about how we need to increase Social Security & Medicare funding. As a Sec State, he fought every spending cut to his department tooth & nail, even when our state was heading toward insolvency so fast that even the Democrats were getting serious about cutting the budget. There's a reason he was endorsed by Mitch McConnell. I can't think of one item of the libertarian platform Greyson was sympathetic with--he's a big-spending, big-government, social conservative.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I think Yonemoto's point was that Paul was at least 50% better than Greyson, and is now 50% better than Conway.

    As opposed to the typical R v D fight where one is 3% better than the other (see: Ric Keller v Alan Grayson).

  • TMLutas||

    Ron Paul was a pro-life libertarian when he got the nomination of the Libertarian party. Rand Paul's pro-life views shouldn't be viewed as running away from libertarianism, just representing a different faction.

    As for his military views, details, details, details. A practical defense policy is possible with libertarianism. The Libertarian Party's view on defense is not practical.

  • Jeff P||

    The main difference is the fact that Paul has made measurable headway and is actually, y'know, doing something...

  • ||

    WOW! What a great point!

    Playing as a Party Member gets you more votes?!?! WHO KNEW?!>!:>?!GG

    FUCK Principles!!! I needs me some power (and some skrimps!)

    Vote Wylie: I'll screw you over, but with 50% less overhead.

  • ||

    "FUCK Principles!!! I needs me some power (and some skrimps!)"

    It's either that or continue getting 1% of the vote in every election.
    This is a classic "Damned if you do; damned if you don't" scenario.

    Personally, I'd love to see a libertarian get into office by pandering to (insert populist cause supporters here) and then breaking all pandering promises once he's in office
    and going uber-libertarian on their asses. (Kind of the opposite of the way it works now. E.g., they get into office by pretending to be fiscally responsible and then proceed to spend like kids in a candy store.)

  • ||

    The problem is that you won't see it. Why? Because the incentives are exactly set up to go the other way. That's why Obama is not a hard-core Marxist who wants a transparent government. He became stream-lined the moment he took office. The same will happen to any libertarian candidate (except he is crazy like Hitler ;) then it might work).

  • ||

    The problem is that you won't see it. Why? Because the incentives are exactly set up to go the other way. That's why Obama is not a hard-core Marxist who wants a transparent government. He became stream-lined the moment he took office. The same will happen to any libertarian candidate (except he is crazy like Hitler ;) then it might work).

  • Chthulu: why settle for less?||

    Obama is not a hard-core Marxist who wants a transparent government.

    Of course not; he's a hard-core Marxist who wants a completely opaque government. And what's "stream-lined" about him, other than his ability to ignore the voters completely in favor of nationalizing everything, pray tell?

    I can't blame you for hitting the bong once you realized you'd brought in a guy who's a bit of the worst of everything, but I suggest you either lay off it now and get your head together, or else hit it harder than ever until you can't see straight enough to find your way to the voting booth or even to these comments sections.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    You should hang out with members of the Green Party. They feel the same way.

    They're also equally politically impotent.

  • Cthorm||

    I didn't click the link, but the quote you highlighted here doesn't sound like distancing himself from libertarianism. Unless I'm missing something...
    In principle, I don't have a problem with our troops fighting in an overseas war, so long that it is a Declared War and there are ongoing good faith efforts at peace. None of our current engagements or deployments come close to that though.

  • M. Simon||

    The War Against the Barbary Pirates was about as declared as the current one.

  • Cthorm||

    I didn't click the link, but the quote you highlighted here doesn't sound like distancing himself from libertarianism. Unless I'm missing something...
    In principle, I don't have a problem with our troops fighting in an overseas war, so long that it is a Declared War and there are ongoing good faith efforts at peace. None of our current engagements or deployments come close to that though.

  • SIV||

    I don't have a problem with our troops fighting in an overseas war, so long that it is a Declared War and there are ongoing good faith efforts at peace.to totally annihilate our enemy.

    FTFY, pussy

  • Yonemoto||

    agreed. should be "were" ongoing good faith efforts.

    Once you declare war, you better fucking win it.

  • Chthulu: why settle for less?||

    So how's it feel to have voted for a guy who's both an appeasenik and a war-monger? Ha ha! Serves all you Bush-hating traitors right!

  • Horde_4_Lyfe||

    Agreed. No more of this "win their hearts and minds" shit by passing out band-aids and bottled water. 1. A declared war; and, 2. Total annihilation. Ummm, as a former Marine, that's what our armed forces are inherently deisgned to do--destroy shit.

  • Paul||

    Paul's son Rand is slinking away from his libertarian roots, after the shellacking he took

    This is what I've been talking about. I'll bet you that in November elections, Tea Party candidates and/or libertarian leaning candidates will amount to a fart in a hailstorm.

    Moderate incumbent Republicans will lose their seats, and I'll bet that Democrats will either lose little, or even gain seats in Congress in November.

    The tea party candidates are going to find their views uncomfortably outside the mainstream when they get out of the rarified air of the primaries, and into the general elections.

  • Apologetic California||

    " I'll bet that Democrats will either lose little, or even gain seats in Congress in November."

    Uh ok.

  • shrike||

    Paul is right.

    Basically, the GOP has mandated that Paul the Lesser become a garden-variety Big-Spending conservative along the lines of Dumbya, Tom DeLay, or Rick "dogfucker" Santorum.

    Nest month, Little Randy will support the invasion of Iran.

  • zoltan||

    God I love you, shrike. Performance art at its highest (lowest?).

  • shrike||

    Its called "cynicism" you cretin.

    I have seen a few GOP administrations and they all love to spend more than Dems - a low bar for sure.

    Eat the GOP nut then. You are among the lowest of the gullible.

  • ||

    Headline, c. 2016: "GOP Congress expands US national deficit to 300 Trillion Dollars. Up from the 200 Trillion Obama left office with."

    But yeah, 3rd parties are for the nutjobs and crazies.

  • ||

    Now where's my $15million-dollar Bill so i can go buy a 6pack....

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Everyone spends more money than the previous administration. Obama's broken some records, though.

  • ||

    I'll bet that Democrats will either lose little, or even gain seats in Congress in November

    Realclearpolitics.com indicates that Democrats will likely lose around 6 seats in the Senate, and are likely to lose the House.

    There are hardly any Republican seats in either chamber in play for the Democrats.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Criticizing any part of the Civil Rights Act is political suicide right now. You want to win? Focus on cutting spending, breaking the power of the unions, simplifying the tax code, and untying the red tape that's strangling business in this country. That's something libertarians should be able to get behind, something the vast, vast majority of Republican *voters* are behind, and, increasingly, more than a few Democrat voters are behind. Leave the fringe stuff for another day.

    It's called "building a coalition," and it's how you get things done in a democracy.

  • ||

    +1

  • flawless cowboy||

    But that would violate libertarian principles, and libertarian principles must never be compromised, even if the alternative is a national ass raping with a broken bottle. Remember, the lesser of two evils isn't less evil and therefore a decent alternative, in the absence of others, to more fucking evil; it's just EVIL.

    On the other hand, winning, governing and/or getting things done are not libertarian principles and thus strictly optional.

    Reserving the right to bitch about the ass raping? Core principle.

  • Marusia||

    But wait a minute. Ron Paul c laimed that the founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation" opposed abortion rights, wanted to restrict immigration, and published a racist newsletter. How is he a libertarian. What are the fucking standards?

  • no decoder ring||

    Isn't the standard to have whatever views you want, but not to impose them on others using laws?

  • Marusia||

    Amazing. Stupidity apparently isn't a disqualifier.

  • Rick H.||

    If stupidity was a disqualifier, there would be no such things as political parties.

  • ||

    "founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation""

    It's quite clear the founding fathers were setting up a christian nation, they just didn't want a new church of England. Look at your history, look at what they actually did.

  • jacob||

    opposed abortion rights

    What's unliberterian about this position? The baby has rights, too.

    wanted to restrict immigration

    He wants to restrict ILLEGAL immigration you fucking idiot. There is nothing unliberterian about standing up for your own property rights.

    published a racist newsletter

    He didn't write any of the racist crap himself, but please explain to me or provide me evidence of where he called for enslavement others or forcefully imposing prejudiced views on others.


    Stupidity apparently isn't a disqualifier.

    Your presence here validates that statement.

  • shrike||

    Liberty starts with body autonomy - you statist Vatican cocksucker.

  • Enyap||

    So are you this vocal to anti-prostitution feminist or those oppose to being able to sell their own organs?

  • shrike||

    I fully support adult prostitution or organ sales.

    Free Market rules!

    Seriously. I like regs that prohibit youth slavery and prostitution - unlike Cro-Magnon libertarians "No Regs" purists.

  • shrike||

    After all, Randy Paul the Younger opposes laws that prohibit 12 yr old US girls from factory work for 1$ a day.

    Regs suck!

  • Yonemoto||

    this law makes sense if you advocate deflation. Someday $1 may be worth $100 in today's dollars. Sadly, the opposite is true.

  • shrike||

    There is no inflation.

    Goldbugs are happy in their bubble - which may run to $1500.

    The downside will put many Becktard bunkers up for sale at the lows.

  • SIV||

    + ∞

    I always end up agreeing with everyone here on something.

  • Enyap||

    Good for you shrike, now go over to feministing and the dailykos, who mostly don't share your support of those, and bitch to them about the violation of your bodyily autonomy. Or you could continue being a left wing parody of Eric Dondero.

  • ||

    Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

  • ||

    > I like regs that prohibit youth slavery

    What about adult slavery?

    In Libertopia, are people allowed to sell themselves into slavery?

    What if their consent wasn't given with full knowledge, because the slavery clause was the fine print of some contract (such as an adhesion contract) that they signed?

  • M. Simon||

    "I fully support adult prostitution or organ sales."

    Sounds like a twofer to me.

  • ||

    Right, that's why you have to draw a line, when becomes a fetus a real human being. That's where the rights of the mother to her body end and where the rights of the children begin.

  • Line Drawn||

    The "fetus" is a real human being from conception. The rights of a mother not to have this real human being in her uterus end the day she gets pregnant. All else is bullshit.

  • M. Simon||

    Jewish law has a different view of this.

  • fresnofanatic||

    Yeah, liberty "not for all" starts with irresponsible and selfish body autonomy. I'm not saying all abortions are wrong. But, if a person/woman/couple aren't "spiritually okay" within themselves to make the "responsible judgement" whether to have an abortion or not then you'll get what we have now in American society where abortion is used as a form of selfish birth control.

  • fresnofanatic||

    i will say this though. i may not be as "libertarian" as you, whatever, but i do agree with you that the federal government has no business making abortion laws....as far as libertarianism goes (in this nation) i think it has to be executed by our government in an incremental way because the people of this nation have been inrementally brainwashed the other (wrong) way, with keyensianism, etc, that the shaky house of cards that has been built since the early 1900's has made it such that if full implementation of libertarianism happened now, the house of cards would surely come tumbling down with chaos ensuing. I'm not saying do the Bush compassionate conservativism bullshit. i'm saying do what ron paul says in what he describes as "the freedom president"....but don't be shy with what principles you believe in (as the ideal goal) but rather through out your anti-statists belief out their like you meen it (don't be shy, Rand...or is Rand showing his true colors???).

  • fresnofanatic||

    spelling correction towards the end of my rant: "throw out" not "through out".

  • jacob||

    Again, the child has a body and abortion infringes in his/her right.

    Fuck off dipshit

  • ||

    The child is a part of the mother's body until it is born.

  • TMLutas||

    Liberty starts with deciding what is a body that deserves autonomy. Abortion past the viability date is as justified as execution for trespass instead of escorting the trespasser off your property.

    When does the child acquire a right to life? That's a question that libertarians can legitimately have different answers to.

  • Some Guy||

    He wants to restrict ILLEGAL immigration you fucking idiot. There is nothing unliberterian about standing up for your own property rights.

    Explain what immigration has to do with property rights, you fucking idiot.

  • MatTrue||

    Considering that a taxpayer's property is used to finance law enforcement, pretty much everything the government does involves property and rights. And if there is a price to pay for US citizenship, which I'm sure many legal immigrants would acknowledge, and benefits being in this country, illegals are getting something for nothing. Some call that theft.

  • Some Guy||

    illegals are getting something for nothing. Some call that theft.

    1) The problem is that people can get something for nothing, not what country those people are from.

    2) They are here to get jobs. If you think it is wrong to want to find the best job you can for the most money you can, then clearly you have some fucked up beliefs.

    3) "It's illegal because it's illegal" is the worst argument ever, no matter what is it being made regarding.

  • ||

    Exactly. End the benefits and the only immigrants we'd have are ones willing to work, or mooch off their families instead of us. Who besides xenophobes would oppose that?

    As a compromise until the entitlement state is eliminated (ah, the day...), instead of demanding papers for people being in a place, give a card to people eligible to receive a benefit. That way to get that free thing, including public education or care at a hospital, etc they would have to prove eligibility. If they are ineligible for those services as citizen taxpayers, they may pay out of their own pocket.

    If charities, such as the Catholic churches in the Southwest U.S. that tend to help immigrants, want to pay that hospital bill or that public school education, by all means, go right ahead. Don't make taxpayers do it.

  • jacob||

    The problem is that people can get something for nothing
    Completelty stupid fucking argument. The rights of welfare and free stuff are intended for citizens of the US. If I walked through an unlocked door into someone's house and stole their stuff, I cannot say that it was their fault for leaving their stuff for people to take advantage.

    They are here to get jobs.

    Except the ones that are here to get welfare and have anchor babies.

    Perhaps if you didn't suck so much dick you'd think clearer. Maybe not...

  • Some Guy||

    I guess the difference between me and you is that I don't see welfare for US citizens as a right.

    Also, if you leave a sign on your doors saying "free stuff inside" then yes, it is your fault.

    So explain to me why you think it should be illegal for someone to come here to get a job and be productive? If you try to deflect again to completely unrelated welfare talking points, I'll take that as an admission that your beliefs on immigration are purely xenophobic in nature.

  • jacob||

    It should not be illegal for someone to come here an and get a job and be productive. Our country hands out approximately one million visas and green cards PER YEAR, and I wouldn't stop that one little bit.

    The fact is that some people choose to "jump the line" in front of millions of others who are paying into the system. I feel this is not fair. I think of the process of legal immigration as sort of a natural selection. If someone is so fucking stupid they can't fill out simple paperwork competently, it is highly unlikely they will come and be 'productive.' BTW there are plenty of illegals who come here and are in jail for violent crimes - were they productive angels you speak of?

    Before you spout off any more of your claims of xenophobia, please know that I was engaged to a girl from India. We went through the legal process of getting her engagement visa, which took months and cost a few hundred dollars. However, neither of us found the paperwork to be too onerous or difficult to fill out. It was quite easy.

    PS The Xenophobia argument is getting a bit old, don't you think? It's about as valid as the "Tea partiers are racist" bullshit.

  • Some Guy||

    It should not be illegal for someone to come here an and get a job and be productive.

    I'm glad to hear that you aren't one of the people demanding that business owners must check immigration status, then.

    Our country hands out approximately one million visas and green cards PER YEAR, and I wouldn't stop that one little bit.

    My point is that there are way more than a million that want a green card (or something like one.) If it were reasonably possible to get one without waiting a few years to a few decades, I would have more sympathy for the enforcement argument, though I would never find it acceptable to go around demanding people's papers.

    Currently, I see our immigration policy as nothing more than "they took our jobs" while using "and they might be terrorists" and a convenient excuse. If we didn't spend all our resources on arresting, trying, and deporting day laborers we could put them into tracking down kidnappers and smugglers (since we're not going to just put them out of business by legalizing drugs.)

    PS The Xenophobia argument is getting a bit old, don't you think? It's about as valid as the "Tea partiers are racist" bullshit.

    If you honestly believe that your average Sheriff Joe fan isn't xenophobic, then you are lying to yourself and probably self aware of it.

  • jacob||

    I agree with much of what your saying and the logic behind that which I don't agree with. And I think Joe Arpaio is nothing but a statist asshole, just because we agree on stopping illegal immigration doesn't mean I'm a fan of his.

  • Some other guy||

    It has to do with keeping kleptocrats like yourself from stealing our property and giving it to these illegal immigrant leeches as you are in fact trying to do every time you advocate relaxing enforcement of the laws against them, you fucking idiot.

  • Some Guy||

    Please elaborate on your retarded strawman argument. What property of yours do I want to steal?

  • jacob||

    +1

  • ||

    Well, by what standard are W. A. Root or Bob Barr good libertarian candidates I ask you?

  • ||

    The FOunders published a racist newsletter?

  • hmm||

    I'm sure this will piss off a few people, but rest assure this isn't a troll.

    If I were running for public office I too would distance myself from Libertarianism. The reasoning is strictly based in the desire to win office. The LP is in a sense tainted with retarded purity battles and has a public image that will only hurt you in trying to obtain votes. Even if I agreed 100% with the theory of the entire LP I wouldn't go near it with a 100 foot stick if I had a shot at public office and unfortunately Libertarianism or the ideas associated with it are dominated by the image of a third party that has failed.

    So while I'm pretty sure Rand doesn't prescribe to 90% of libertarian ideals, I can't blame him for distancing himself as a practical move toward election.

  • Paul||

    This view isn't entirely irrational. Even if you're not a Libertarian, but a libertarian, you'll be chewed up by the media machine...

    They would bog you down in theoretical discussions about... oh, building codes or 1964 civil rights act or something, and your message would never get out.

    My view is that libertarian candidates would never get to talk about their mainstream platform ideas because the press wouldn't care about them. Everytime you held a press conference to talk about broad reaching stuff like foreign policy, our goals in iraq, or basic civil liberties, some group of reporters would bog you down in some theoretical discussion about "freedom of association" and most average americans would merely go "huh?" and that would be the end of your candidacy.

  • ||

    If you won, Paul, how would you explain it when you vote "no" for everything?

    Or would you plan on being a one term crypto-libertarian?

  • ||

    Why explain? Just vote "no" and keep your head down.

  • Paul||

    My veto pen would run out of ink before my second term.

  • robc||

    My veto pen would run out of ink before my second term month.

    FTFY

  • ||

    My veto pen would run out of ink before my 1st second in office. Shit I'd be vetoing bills before i was even elected. I'm doing it RIGHT NOW! Its great cardio!

  • Some Guy||

    Right after I got done swearing in on the Jefferson Bible, I would have 10 assistants standing behind me with executive orders telling the various groups of people that they're furloughed until I could get a bill passed eliminating their jobs.

    (Vetoes are only good for new bills. My plan would at least take a month or two in the courts to be nullified, or might even stand.)

  • ||

    > My veto pen would run out of ink before my 1st second in office.
    > Shit I'd be vetoing bills before i was even elected.
    > I'm doing it RIGHT NOW! Its great cardio!

    Yeah, I'm sure that will be your excuse when you get a "repetitive motion injury" in your wrist.

    "I'm vetoing bills! Don't open the door!"

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Given the mood here in Kentucky right now, a Senator who votes "no" on everything just might be able to stay in office for life.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Im prety sure that was partialy aimed over here, as I am the self proclaimed LP defender of H&R, BUT since this last convention I am inclined to agree. Hoowever, in the spirit of nostalgia I shall, one last time, defend the concept:

    Since the LP has such a bad image it is the responsiility of those members who seek to succeed to change it...even if it means a long protracted battle. The benefit of the structural framework in place for a third party (arguable the ONLY third party) is not to be undersestimated. Ross Perot spent MILLIONS to just get on the ballot and it was easier abck then. Will Ballot access the way it is now and new party/independant would require massive financing, several years of planning, a ground swell of support, and even then may not make it on in 10-12 states. The LP at least can consistently get on in 48 to 50 states each time.

    That said, I think I have officially given up defending the LP as it is today. I won't fight them but I will certainly find other outlets for my money and time.

    *plays funeral dirge*

  • alan||

    I did some marketing research after the last party fracas, and I have discovered that the LP would gain some points with people if they switched their brand name to Ultra Tide.

  • cynical||

    They'd win more offices in Alabama if they were the Tide party, sho nuff.

  • Chris||

    rule #1 of politics in Alabama....never declare your loyalty to either Bama or Auburn unless you want to start out with no more than 50% of the vote....War Damn Eagle!

  • CE||

    With Prop 14, kiss ballot access goodbye in California. On the plus side, it'll be easier to disguise your libertarian philosophy and sneak into the "top two" November runoff, if that's your chosen strategy....

  • ||

    We've already witnessed the fact that you can tell outright lies while on the campaign trail, and then pull a 180 once you pay lip service to "protect and defend the Constitution". So why not say what everyone wants to hear?

  • ||

    Were I running for office, I'd definitely distance myself from the "heroin-vending-machines-in-preschools, pro-private nukes" Libertarian Party. There's a difference. Even if you support those things as end-points of a free society, you're living in political la-la land if you think advocating those things will bring you any closer to that point. Making yourself easily targeted and sequestered to a distance corner of politics by the major parties is a pretty bad idea even if it is an interesting philosophy and there is something noble in a Promethean way trying to have it all at once so you aren't inconsistent. Still...since the advent of the LP, the major parties haven't even been trying to move in the right direction for the most part.

  • CE||

    What preschools?

  • nicrivera||

    Hmm wrote: "Even if I agreed 100% with the theory of the entire LP I wouldn't go near it with a 100 foot stick if I had a shot at public office and unfortunately Libertarianism or the ideas associated with it are dominated by the image of a third party that has failed."

    So what you're essentially saying is that you're not even willing to defend your own views.

    If I can't count on you to stand up for what you believe in while campaigning for office, then why should I believe that you would stand up for what you believe in once you've been elected to office?

  • hmm||

    Thanks for proving the purity portion of my argument.

    You won't have to worry about believing in what any one under the LP flag does in a national office for a while, if ever. As cruel as that statement is, I don't think you can refute it.

  • ||

    Defending your own views is different from rubbing voters' noses in the most far-off practical effects of the full implementation of the philosophy. I don't think there's any harm in campaigning on current issues and incremental improvement.

  • ||

    +1

  • proud libitard||

    Many on this board were predicting is eventual distancing and lo and behold it's starting...sad

  • Proud lefturd slayer||

    What, "it's starting" only now? Dude, where have you been? You've all been political lepers since the 1980s!

  • ||

    Here is the actual interview. It is a little different from the summary you write up, but since the KY Libertarian party already publicly disowned him, are you saying he should have championed them?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxUpNhjFLq8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1qp_bam9Cc

  • Ice2||

    Doesn't surprise me one bit. I actually wouldn't mind if Rand lost. If I was a libertarian in his district I would have ran as a libertarian party(or just independent) and would try and siphon as many votes off as I could. Rand is a neo con cock sucker and he sure as hell ain't getting any of money for donation.

  • SIV||

    Somebody ruin your gay wedding?

  • Ice2||

    nope, just tired of libertarians having to compromise while tea partiers and republicans won't dare compromise on a single thing.

  • robc||

    Compromising doesnt make you a "neo con cock sucker". Those works have meanings.

  • robc||

    s/works/words/

  • Marusia||

    "Libertarian cock sucker" refers to a specific cock, doesn't it?

  • Specificity||

    Well yeah, since there's usually only one Libby with a dick living within a ten mile radius of any of you, if that many. The rest of you homos have little choice but to strain yourselves auto-fellating.

  • x,y||

    Well, it does make you a cocksucker.

  • SIV||

    The Tea Partiers are forcing the establishment Republicans to get on board or out of the way.If the "far right wing" of the GOP does well in this election the Party will be much more "libertarian-leaning".

  • Ice2||

    yeah "get on board" you know what their platform is. remember how ron paul was challenged by 3 tea party opponents in the primaries in march because "he wasnt on board" with the tea parties message of big government?

  • SIV||

    I'm actually enthused about the Primary success of Tea Party/"far right" GOP candidates-- and most libertarians should be as well. Sharron Angle actually wants to abolish the DOE and gradually phase out SS. If she can win a NV US Senate seat on that we are getting somewhere.

  • Nash||

    in case you haven't noticed libertarians don't win elections.

    Maybe they should start compromising and we can start with Rand Paul.

  • Ice2||

    maybe republicans can comprise and then well start talking. but until then it has so far been a one sided compromise, then fuck the republicans.

  • Logfile||

    Well, so, libertarian politicians (and libertarian-ish politicians) should infiltrate the Republican party and change it. They should get a foothold within the party, use the access that it gets them to go on tv & radio shows. They should use that time to try to change the debate. Change the salient issues. Now's pretty much the perfect time.

  • ||

    Stop talking. You are making too much sense.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    You mean like the hard left did with the Democratic Party, so that it is now basically impossible to get anywhere as a Democrat if you aren't a socialist?

  • T||

    Yeah, the Republican Liberty Caucus is really changing minds, aren't they? When they're not being treated like lepers by the rest of the GOP, that is. The only other group associated with the GOP that gets treated worse than the RLC is the Log Cabin Republicans.

  • cynical||

    You're talking as though the republicans aren't already hopelessly compromised by trying to create a big tent that includes fiscal conservatives, national greatness militarists, and family values theocrats. If they compromised any more, they'd just be the Fuck The Democrats party. Of course, I guess they already are to the independents that vote for them, especially this time around.

  • robc||

    The one thing he clearly isnt is a neo-con.

    Also, you are an idiot. He is running for Senate. There are no districts, you fucking moron.

    Rand Paul...Jack Conway? As someone who almost always votes for the LP candidate, this one isnt even freakin hard.

  • Ice2||

    its not like i like jack conway either, its just that stab me in the back well then i hope u get whats coming for u in november

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There appears to be some disagreement as to the what precise shape you need to be to fit into the libertarian pigeonhole.

  • Ice2||

    I can tolerate differences on abortion, and maybe even illegal immigration, but when it comes to foreign policy, thats one thing where i wont compromise. non-interventionism is one of the main things of the libertarian message.

  • robc||

    Having troops overseas isnt in conflict with non-interventionism. I think the War in Afghanistan (if declared) would have been easily justifiable.

  • ||

    No it isn't. Libertarianism ends at the water's edge, since the assumptions of libertarianism (strong govt protecting rights of individuals against coercers) fail once you enter the international arena.

    Far too many people here are assuming that libertarians all agree with them on every issue they feel strongly about.

  • To all skeptics:||

    If you don't believe him, just go try to convince all of Israel's neighbors of the merits of "non-intervention" in Israel's struggles against all the Islamonazi terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank.

  • To all skeptics:||

    That is, of course, not intervening themselves. Most of them are already well-nigh ecstatic with glee that you "weak horses" are not intervening as they try to perpetrate a Second Holocaust on the Jews while denying that the first one ever happened.

  • gfive||

    Apperently "Libertarianism" is complete intolerance of anyone who has a slightly different opinion, combined with a complete inability to do anything about it.
    I'll take Paul's version anyday, although I wish he'd show a little more fire and let everyone know that even the most sacred and popular laws on the books have bits of slime attached to them which ought to be sliced off.

  • ||

    By the standards of the Senate, he's crazy libertarian. Let's not forget that.

  • SIV||

    Perhaps even more than Jim DeMint (R-SC).

  • robc||

    Perhaps?

  • SIV||

    At this point they don't look much different ideologically, except DeMint is actually in the Senate.

  • robc||

    Should have realized this is a Moynihan link. He never corrected nor acknowledged that he completely misinterpreting (based on reading someone else's article instead of listening to the actual interview) what Rand Paul said in the previous thread. Surprise, surprise, another misleading headline.

  • robc||

    I should say that this time the headline is technically accurate. Although I dont see how the views specifically mentioned distances himself from libertarianism. Libertarian Party, maybe.

  • Rick||

    If Tea Partiers are expecting big results in November I think they have another thing coming. But that has nothing to do with where the mainstream is on libertarianism. That is still small and Rand Paul is not "libertarian" (yes, purity test).

    The LP was not founded to "win elections" or "get votes". It was founded to help persuade the mainstream to move more in its direction. Only fools think third parties are something with more potential. So distancing yourself from the LP makes sense if you're trying to win and have a realistic shot at winning. If you're just trying to be an advocate for libertarian principles but you're not serious about winning, then there is no need to distance yourself from the LP. How many libertarians really care about the LP now anyway? It's irrelevant.

    That said, what does it say about Kentucky voters polled that his lead has shrunk so much in such a short period of time because of some noise in the MSM? Is his Demo opponent really doing anything to earn it or is he just benefiting from BS "racist" innuendo?

    Don't be surprised if there are voters "sending a message" by voting for lame establishment hacks, from either party, just because they're not the incumbent or incumbent party.

    Americans. Jeez.

  • ||

    "It was founded to help persuade the mainstream to move more in its direction"

    It's working!
    NOT.

  • Rick||

    Let's see... no military draft, right to own gold privately, a growing movement to end the drug war, opposition to the Patriot Act, movement to get the government out of the marriage business, growth of conceal carry, DC v Heller, growth of minority and woman owned businesses without the help of government... I could go on.

    I suppose you think that some of those things - like the draft or anti drug war movement - are to be credited to the left and the influence of liberty had nothing to do with it?

    Your comment actually shows the whole point... that even people like you are at least somewhat influenced by liberty (you are here on this thread) even if you're not aware of its influence.

  • ||

    And despite the "growing opposition" which we certainly still would have had without the LP we still DO have the Patriot Act, the Drug War, more outlawed drugs, the draft (not gone or banned, just inactive thanks to the Vietnam War, not the LP - we still have Selective Service registration), government ever deeper in the marriage business, far more bureaucracy, more government excessive regulations on businesses and property use, more gun control, debt, two party duopoly, heavy tax rates, the highest incarceration rate in the world, two wars and continued foreign interventionism, etc. etc. etc. It's very hard to say we've progressed much towards freedom (civil rights progress aside, which the Left would attribute as largely a successful outcome of Affirmative Action). The limited progress we have made can hardly be attributed to the LP's education program. Would have been much, much better to have a party appealing to the center with incrementalist alternatives to all the above listed things centered in economics instead of ideological purity.

  • fresnofanatic||

    i almost agree with what you're saying but i CANNOT STAND DECEPTION!!! Now, if i were a libertarian running for office in the GOP, i wouldn't "lie" to get votes, i'd just answer in a more general way after recognizing that the asked question(s) were designed to smear me into the corner. All Rand had to say to Rachel Maddow is, "if a bill to repeal, or, amend any part of the 1964 civil rights act came to the floor for a vote, you can bet i'd think read every word of that bill to make sure the person(s) who wrote it weren't trying to pull a fast one"....Reagan was very good at deflecting idiotic questions. Just cup your hand behind one ear as if you couldn't hear the question.

  • jtuf||

    There are Libertarian arguments for banning abortion. It all depends on when you think a human gains the right to protection from being killed. Several years ago, the LP considered making their plank neutral on abortion. The motion lost by a close vote. Libertarianism also allows for troop deployment depending on the details.

    If I lived in Kentucky, I would probably check every detail of his positions for parts that are contrary to libertarianism. From what little I know of Rand Paul, I think he would be better than any of the other Senators on Capital Hill.

  • robc||

    I live in KY, and from what I can tell, I score Paul about an 80 or 85 (out of 100). Has the LP run someone I would score higher? Yes. And Ive voted for them and they got .5% of the vote.

    Has the KY GOP run anyone recently scoring any where near 80 or 85? Nope.

    Is it good enough? Well, since the LP isnt going to be on the ballot, thats a no-brainer. And even if they were, running a 95er, I would vote for Paul. I dont vote for a 20 over a 5, but an 80 is good enough for me.

  • qwerty||

    "When someone agrees with you 80% of the time, that makes them an ally."

    Ronald Reagan

  • robc||

    Exactly. And that hasnt happened with a GOP candidate in my voting lifetime (I made the mistake of voting for a 30 instead of a 90 in 1988, my first go at presidential elections, and dont make that mistake anymore).

  • Horde_4_Lyfe||

    I too am living in KY and agree with the comment of robc.

  • ||

    Makes sense to me. If the 80% rle is too complicated...look for candidates that Dick Cheney, Barrack Obama and David Frum are all against.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I already did. I would switch his idea of National Defense to "anti-liberty" now that his views have been further clarified and he seems to support foreign interventions, but most of it would stay the same.

    I'm okay with some difference between my views and a candidate's, but when we get to a certain point, it's no longer allowing the perfect ruining the good. Paul is quickly getting to that point with me.

    He won the primary because he was able to sufficiently differentiate himself from his republitard competitor. Now in the general elections, he seems to be turning face and resembling the "Federal government is bad except for all of the restrictions I want to impose on people" type of republican that we all hate.

    The defining moment for me will be when I get his response to how he feels the war on drugs has been progressing, and where it should go from here.

    Yes, this is more than a theoretical debate for me. I am a Kentuckian. If I don't feel comfortable voting for him, I'll abstain.

  • CE||

    If Libertarians had any balls, there wouldn't be any troops to deploy. Taxes are theft, remember? And the Constitution has always prohibited a standing army.

  • Devils Advocate ||

    Could Rand Paul be losing his lead in the polls BECAUSE he's distancing himself from libertarianism? In other words, is he looking weak and indecisive when it comes to his principles?

  • robc||

    I think so.

    Although, really, I think its just post-primary reversion to the mean.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That must be it, because strict principles have always won out over pandering and personal attacks in American politics.

  • J||

    I guess you're being sarcastic, but McCain's last minute decision that he is a free-market conservative and waffling over bailouts made him even more of a joke than he already was. And his half-assed attacks on Obama's past didn't convince anyone.

    Paul would stand half a chance if he looked like he believed in something, which he lately seems desperately trying to show people he doesn't.

  • ||

    Because he doesn't want to repeal the CRA and opposes abortion? Comparing that to McCain's shifty maverickism is ludicrous.

  • J||

    I wasn't comparing him to McCain. I was showing where flip-flopping and name calling get people, not accusing Paul of doing those things.

    Of course I much prefer Paul to McCain, or probably ANY democrat he's up against, he seems a little scared of the libertarian brand that got him this far. Perhaps rightfully so, but backing away won't please the media, and won't win any converts.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    He didn't "flip-flop" on abortion. Realizing someone isn't who you built up in your head isn't the same thing as him changing; that's you adjusting your perception to reality.

  • J||

    Where did I say he flip-flopped on abortion? Read my post more carefully.

  • J||

    Yes. It's better to choose your stance, whether it be Libertarian, libertarian, semi-libertarian and non libertarian, than to keep moving around until you feel you've made enough people happy. That has made him look like he has no real principles to those who might vote for him, and a moving target for those who want to trash him.

  • ||

    He's opposed abortion and supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since before the primary. This is absolutely no evidence of him having no principles. Indeed, if he took the positions you want him to, THAT would represent a loss of principles.

  • J||

    Look, I do think he is principled and would really like him to get a seat in the senate.

    But, I think after showing he is a strict libertarian with the civil rights debate, he appears trying to back away from that label. Though I am pro-choice, I think there is room for pro-life libertarians. He just seems to be on the defensive now. I'd rather he say "Yes, I'm a libertarian" and see how the cards fall. He seems to now be adjusting how much of a libertarian he wants to call himself.

  • jacob||

    He did not support the war in Iraq, only fucking idiots supported that nonsense

    http://blogsforvictory.com/201.....onist-gop/

    Of course, if you've got evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us.

  • ||

    Until I clicked the link, I thought it was going to be an old Michael Moynihan war-shilling link.

    Because that would've been relevant, too.

  • jacob||

    "Paul says invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do"

    I dunno, sounds relevant to me.

  • CE||

    It's better to choose your stance... than to keep moving around until you feel you've made enough people happy.

    Exactly. Ron Paul has 10 election wins to prove your point. And he would never back away from libertarian principle in defending his views.

  • Rich||

    libertarian candidates would never get to talk about their mainstream platform ideas because the press wouldn't care about them.

    I thought that, in these days of modern time, "the press" is increasingly obsolescent.

    Also, given the anti-incumbent, anti-congress atmospherics, distancing oneself from the *republicrats* might not be a bad approach.

  • Ron Paul||

    Son... I am disappoint

  • Tony||

    If we only had the right libertards in charge.

  • ||

    So Rand Paul, who has always been against abortion and has always favored our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, tells a radio guy that he opposes abortion rights and favors our deployments overseas and that means he's "distancing" himself???

    Very misleading headline, Reason.

  • ||

    Rand is slinking away from his libertarian roots, after the shellacking he took for suggesting that private business should be free to do (or not do) business with whomever they chose (there is much more to the argument than my incomplete summary,...

    Actually, I think that is an entirely complete summary. It was disappointing to see so many people distance themselves from that argument, based on what I presume is fear of being labeled a racist or a kook.

  • ||

    the louder the left wing establishment screams, the more they fear him

  • Tony||

    Who's screaming? The leftwing establishment has taken a similar stance as theirs toward Sarah Palin: being silent and hoping he opens his mouth again.

  • ||

    I don't recall lefties having that stance toward Palin...

  • Edwin||

    lulz because it's true

  • zoltan||

    Screaming for her health records is not silent.

  • ||

    Your story is total bullshit. Rand Paul from day one has said he isn't a "libertarian" he has called himself a "constitutional conservative."

    His campaign was never about civil rights and he hasn't changed that now.

    Apparently, the author of this forum just started following this race!

  • alan||

    Distancing yourself from Libertarian positions only makes you look defensive and hence weak. It is a natural tendency to want to be liked, but in politics it doesn't work out. You will always be on the defensive and on the receiving end of getting effed in the A unless you are the one calling out the opposition.

    You have to put your opponent on the offensive:

    Freedom of association?

    Well, Rachel, my opponent wants to pass a bill to force every straight white person to adopt their very own lesbian black lady and give them room, shelter and three square meals a day. Well, I think we should leave lesbians and black people alone to do what they want to instead of assuming we know what is best for them.

    Here is a grand slam hit of an answer because you not only appealed to the prejudices of the American public with a sensationalistic fear mongering, but you also appealed to their sense of tolerance and fair play by stating you want minorities to be left alone. All joking aside for a second, the American public is exactly that schizophrenic.

    Building codes.

    I'm sure those construction workers who did an outstanding job of building this fine structure appreciate hearing you demean their work ethic by insinuating they are lazy and would not have done such fine work if not for some pencil neck gubment poindextor standing over them and telling them what to do

    Raise up from the chair, stomp hard three time.

    You see that, Rachel? No glass shaking, no mortar falling on our heads. Outstanding work, men! God bless the working man!

  • alan||

    You have to put your opponent on the offensive:

    err, defensive.

    And stomp three times,

    And, yes, I'm plastered.

  • CE||

    My favorite moment of the 2008 election season was when some TV moron asked Ron Paul how the government could pay for things like the Capitol building he was standing in front of without an income tax. Ron Paul pointed out that the Capitol building he was standing in front of was built before the income tax was implemented.

  • Edwin||

    BP recently flew in Rand Paul as a consultant - they heard he's good at getting the black out of things

  • hmm||

    A lot of the comments in this thread are the exact things I mentioned that are broken in the LP. The purity argument and the lack of understanding of the game, or game theory, of elections.

    There's a reason the highest elected LP politician in the country is a Republican convert and he's probably the one person who will be able to win his reelection. I can say at least one person understands politics and takes a pragmatic approach.

  • alan||

    You can't really gauge that with one consistent metric and call it the pragmatic answer that works every time.

    On the National level look at what has worked in the past, and try to find a consistent means for getting there:

    76 Carter -- Outsider
    80 Reagan -- fiscal conservative, Nationalism,
    84 Reagan -- Not Mondale
    88 Bush -- fiscal liberalism, social conservatism
    92 Clinton -- Neoliberalism
    96 Clinton -- Hasn't got us killed yet
    00 Bush -- Not Gore, Muddled and Soft Centered
    04 Bush -- Middle of War
    08 Obama -- Messiah

    LP tripping over itself is one factor in its impotence, but one hundred times more important than that is the two party duopoly patronage systems that attract talent whose motivations may be unprincipled and amoral but at least they can make a career out of being party hacks. Not so many opportunities to do that in the LP.

  • hmm||

    You're missing the point completely. Politics on the national stage is a numbers game an the LP can't even play the numbers game (which is a lot easier) at the local level. They don't even know they are playing a numbers game and assume it's solely an ideology game.

    Like I said before there's a reason money runs from the LP and they are drowning in their own silliness.

  • alan||

    Politics on the national stage is a numbers game an the LP can't even play the numbers game (which is a lot easier) at the local level.

    It is easier to win a stray race here and there, but that is not where political power is mustered. Singular candidates without a machine backing them can be ignored by everyone else in the game. Without those patronage jobs to hand out, it really isn't any easier for the LP to be a viable party at the local level.

    In fact, it is easier to make noise on the national level through the ideology being something of a sexy spectacle, but like you said, that doesn't equal political power either.

  • alan||

    Singular candidates

    Singular office holders, I mean. If I'm making argument with someone I generally agree with on everything, you can assume mean old tequila is involved.

  • hmm||

    Let me put it to you this way. You can make up a million excuses, but here are two facts:

    1) the LP has 250K in the bank (that's laughable)
    2) At the last LP convention not one single candidate for office within the LP had a strategy, not even a basic strategy. The closest to a strategy was Root, and his was to win in the first round. (which really is more of a realization than a strategy)

    They can't even figure out how to get elected within their own party and I know for a fact they won't take advice on how to do so. That was a simple 540ish ballot run-off. Nothing more than an iterated game with at most 4 periods and with a few social aspects. There are college freshman that could have laid out contingencies for each run-off better than the candidates did.

    It's like watching 9 year old's argue over the best superhero.

  • alan||

    Obviously, not many serious politicians will bother with a third party, so what you described where there are amateurs running the show thinking it is a debating society should be what you would expect.

    Realistically, running away from the party apparatus is a smart move. Okay, I can see where I agree with you on that, but don't underestimate the factors I stated that get you there.

    There are college freshman that could have laid out contingencies for each run-off better than the candidates did.

    Reminds me, my congressman has been entrenched for decades, and I had a friend, we were seniors together, who was tasked with running the campaign of the token Democrat thrown up against him.

    Her bitterness towards the unseriousness of the candidate whose campaign she ran grew by the day. A sweet old lady who did not know what orifice to poop from, but who loved the attention she got when she met groups, and was given a podium to stand there and say nothing.
    A reward for being a loyal trooper in the party machine.

    A few months later I secured a Summer internship with that same congressman she ran a campaign against. I didn't tell my friend as it may have rubbed salt in to the wounds.

  • hmm||

    Obviously, not many serious politicians will bother with a third party, so what you described where there are amateurs running the show thinking it is a debating society should be what you would expect.

    That's exactly what it looked like to me. The problem was they think they are serious politicians. The only way the get serious politicians are the few that convert. God bless them for converting, but I feel for them with respect to getting reelected.

  • ||

    Another so-called libertarian!

    penny@dorne.info

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    I just love the hypocrisy of "pro-life" libertarians! It just cracks me up. Okay, you say "I want the government to interfere and judge in the private actions of a woman and her doctor. Because fetuses are human beings and their rights need to be protected."

    All good so far...but after they're born? Fuck 'em! If they're born in to grinding poverty? So what? Hey! Let the mothers sell them! If they're born handicapped - ooooh too bad, they'll just have to beg on the streets for a living. If they're born into abusive households? Well, the state can't help because that would invade the privacy of the parents!

  • Atanarjuat||

  • ||

    +1

  • CE||

    There's no hypocrisy in consistently defending innocent human life and human rights for all, and beginning that defense at conception.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Pro-life libertarians don't think a mother should be able to kill her child after it's born, either. Don't see where the inconsistency lies.

  • Fearsome Tycoon||

    Pro-life libertarians don't think a mother should be able to kill her child after it's born, either. Don't see where the inconsistency lies.

  • ||

    Sounds a bit like you approve of killing poverty stricken children.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Hate Potion Number Nine,

    Okay, you say "I want the government to interfere and judge in the private actions of a woman and her doctor. Because fetuses are human beings and their rights need to be protected."

    Comes first under the fundamental principle "Do No Harm". It comes second under contract law: The human fetus is a third party; two parties cannot create a contract or agreement that involves a 3rd party, without the 3rd party's consent. You don't need government to judge anything else than that.

  • ||

    IF the fetus is a third party...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Hate Potion Number Nine,

    All good so far...but after they're born? Fuck 'em! If they're born in to grinding poverty? So what? Hey! Let the mothers sell them!

    Your strawman rings hollow, even for a strawman. If poverty were a justification for murder, then why not continue in that vein and off the mother as well?

  • ||

    which id why I gave up on the LPUS a dozen years ago
    http://westernlibertarian.org/philosophy.htm

  • ||

    That Rand dude is SUCH a tool. I mean seriously.

    www.anonymity-online.net.tc

  • ||

    How is this different then what he said before his CRA controversery? Didn't his platform already tell us this? : "I'm a Constitutional Conservative" "I would've voted for Afghanistan, but voted against Iraq." "I support military tribunals." He is not his father's son on alot of issues, but he's still waaay better than Jack Conway and Trey Grayson

  • vikingMoose||

    "sound money"

    oh for fuck's sake...

    the social-conservative Pauls and their associated paultards are constitution party refugees. prolly got kicked out of their local hare kristnas for being too hippiesque.

  • Old Mexican||

    WHy do you hate the sound of money?

  • ed||

    My take is that Rand Paul can't trust Americans to accept or even comprehend the principles of liberty and self-reliance that the Founders and their countrymen took for granted. I blame us.

  • ||

    Since Rand Paul announced his candidacy, he has described himself as a Republican who is a "constitutional conservative". The media has repeatedly described him as a Libertarian, probably because of his father. If the man went on the record on his description of his political ideology early in his campaign, why do people continue to get it wrong? Are they ignorant or dishonest?

  • ed||

    Both.

  • ||

    From afar I would say Rand Paul lost a chunk of support with independents when he foolishly made BP and big tobacco look like they needed a break. He also didn't seem to notice that he might have been OK saying restaurant owners could be bigots if they wanted to, but the Hell independent voters would be OK with the bigots lighting cigarettes! He doesn't seem to understand that "natural law" actually does account for the "law of the commons" where you cannot pollute the environment of others but otherwise should be able to do what natural law would allow.

    So he needs to shut up about restaurant owners having the right to let people light up a marijuana cigarette (or tobacco - both smell just as disgusting) in front of others and their children in the middle of their meals.

    Even if you disagree with me and the majority on cigarettes, I can tell you it *will* cost Rand Paul the election if he tries to press the issue even in KY. I can be a full scale libertarian and still be against corporations being allowed to sell poisonous products.

    Since restaurant and disco owners are idiots, the Hell I'm going to find a decent place to eat or meet women if smoking is allowed. They will also skimp on the dishwasher temperatures if the law didn't require them to be high enough to kill germs and they would all use hydrogenated oils - like they still do - until the law forces them to use something the human body can actually break down and use (hydrogenated oils just accumulate in the arteries around the heart).

    Laws based on real scientific evidence of harm can be OK. It is when they are based on ideology (global warming, sexual harrassment) that they get really bad.

    The problem in US society today is that "the commons" has also come to mean that feminists deserve to have their $50,000 student loans forgiven and to be offered $70,000 per year government funded jobs in NGOs, etc, etc.

    Rand Paul needs to say the limit of "commons" law and the Commerce Clause has to be in terms of poisonous products (cigs, asbestos, spillable oil and totally unnatural trans-fats which should have been banned in 1910 when they were invented).

    If he can make that distinction, he can win the middle.

    It ain't rocket science either.

    He just needs to say that all laws based on science can be reviewed while all laws based on the majority's ideology need to be scrapped - thrown out completely.

  • ||

    The whole "restaurant owners have the same rights as a homeowner with guests" breaks down because a guest is trusting a friend not to poison him while a restaurant client is expecting that a complete stranger won't poison him due to the profit motive (the cheapest, most durable food ingredients are mostly sheer poison).

    Similarly, OSHA actually needs to be strengthened as workers are usually *not* told about the toxins they will be exposed to on any particular job or may be too young to know the dangers (most anti-smoking laws are based on this sound principle and the majority of Americans intelligently agree with this even if, like me, they are otherwise libertarian Republicans.

  • Stop Eating Out||

    You are not entitled to restaurants or bars or even food, and if you can't accept the rules that private restaurant owners set for their property, and would have the state override their choice, well that makes you a statist, and you can piss off and die.
    "Freedom, except when I'm inconvenienced" is the attitude that's killing this country and western civilization. You don't like the entitlement mindset you see around you? You're part of it! Do everyone a favor and never set foot in a restaurant ever again. That way you don't have to worry about smokers, and the rest of us will have one less self-righteous prick bitching about trans-fats.

  • ||

    So restaurant owners can just go ahead and add arsenic to the burgers too right?

    You are an asshole if you think that anyone has a right to feed trans-fats or any other poison to people without putting that on the label. Do you know that trans-fats are not digestible, collect in the heart and are unnecessary in food? Where is the customer right to choose if the food provider doesn't say what the ingredients are?

    Human beings are meant to eat locally, stuff they can pick or kill or harvest. Why should you support a local donut manufacturer when he realizes that the only way he can "expand nationally" is to add trans-fats - basically preservatives - to the mix, thus poisoning everyone?

    One has to ask the question: if this product or ingredient were invented today, would it be allowed? Neither cigarettes nor hydrogenated oils would be allowed if invented today.

    I actually agree that a restaurant owner should have the right to say he doesn't want to serve certain types of people, but poisoning people is wrong and saying "If they don't want to be poisoned, they don't have to work there or eat there" is BS.

    You are also 100 years behind the times if you think employers have a right to tell prospective employees that, if they want the only job available in town, they have to breathe smoke all day.

    If you want libertarian Republicanism to work, you have to stop supporting the idea that poisoning the public is OK. If you want to turn your restaurant into a private club, go ahead...but don't lure unsuspecting families with children into your establishment and expect them to pay for their meal after some redneck ruined it by lighting up without asking if they'd mind.

    Sure, if you're smoking when I enter a restaurant, I can just turn around and leave. But if I am half way through my meal when you light up, you are creating a public disturbance by assaulting me and my family.

    Lay off the bullshit about the right to smoke in front of strangers.

    No...you won't win this argument.

    And no...it won't help the GOP as an issue.

    The GOP can reverse Marxist feminist laws, but it won't reverse worker safety laws, halt the spread of anti-smoking laws nor stop the trend of regulating poisons in food.

    And don't get me started on how the USA shockingly still allows giving cattle hormones so they can grow 15% fatter (everyone is forced to give their cattle hormones now because that 15% represents profit margin until the poisonous practice is outlawed).

  • ||

    Let's remember very clearly that every minute your average redneck wastes arguing in favor of "smokers rights" means more feminist and religious lawmaking gets a pass.

    I know smoking makes men impotent, but you would have to be castrated not to spend more time wondering why state legislatures are married to the greedy divorce lawyer industry that indentures men who were stupid enough to get married and why the US Congress has been allowed to mandate forced background checks for men who meet foreign women online (IMBRA regulates what feminists and evangelist women call "Mail Order Brides") - why some religious "Republican men" back the idea that it doesn't matter if a man believed a woman was 18 or not (in Utah) and why men are being treated like lobsters in special prostitution sting operation traps where their "offense" would be in agreeing to walk toward a room with a gorgeous female police officer.

    And you can't say "the acceptance of anti-smoking laws started the ball rolling on all that". That simply isn't true. It appears that "smokers rights" types either prioritize smoking in their own lives or really don't mind all the other, much worse lawmaking.

    Why is Rand Paul afraid to deal with the sex and marriage regulation issues that would resonate with the male vote? Because he may mistakenly think it is politically "safer" to just go after the smoker vote in a tobacco state.

    I maintain that it is cowardly to waste time on "smokers rights" because it means that the proponent is afraid to talk about the real issues of statism that affect people who don't have a death wish.

    It probably means that the smoking proponent is an impotent old man who no longer has an interest in sex.

    Notice, for instance, that I am not hearing the argument that a restaurant owner has the right to tell a female employee that sex, like cigarette smoke, is part of her job or she can quit (I would maintain that a boss has more of a right to thus add to a job description than expose the employee to smoke).

    If I heard the sex with employees argument placed side by side with the right to expose employees to smoke, I will respect the "smokers rights" argument a lot more.

  • ||

    Rand Paul would have so much fertile territory going after the NGOs in DC that he can say he will try to totally defund. He needs to say he will put at least 5,000 lawyers and lobbyists out of work in DC - gutting funded for all laws, like VAWA, that are based totally on ideology.

  • ||

    You didn't have to break your lefty screed into three segments to not have me read all of it.

  • ||

    Lefty screed? Try going to Twitter at VeteransAbroad to see if I qualify even a little as a leftist.

    VAWA is a radical feminist law...pushed through by the Democrats when the GOP had a majority because Sam Brownback made deals with Maria Cantwell. Why isn't Rand Paul going after that huge money sink, when all males and half of all women would support him on it.

    Over my dead body will you smoke in front of me. I am 6'2" and you won't get away with it, no matter who's restaurant we happen to be in.

    Plus, the GOP *will* lose its current advantage if it pushes the smoking issue...precisely the wrong issue to push...as would be a call to repeal the asbestos or DDT ban.

    There are so many bad laws to oppose that laws against poisoning the environment (as opposed to bogus stuff about global warming) are *not* what you want to focus on even if you might be right (the new lead paint renovation law goes too far).

    Go after lawmaking based entirely on ideology or fake science, not laws based on real science (tobacco and asbestos are 100% known to cause cancer).

    Man up and tell Rand Paul to start openly opposing Marxist Feminism and its $ billion per year VAWA law, conveniently named "Violence Against Women Act" but based entirely on ideology and used to keep graduates of women's studies courses employed.

    Diverting attention from that is leftist.

  • ||

    200 years ago, workers at tanneries could have all been forced by economics to declare "I am exposing myself to all the toxic dyes of my own free will". In 2010, if Rand Paul or anyone else wants to try to defend that renunciation of OSHA, even I would turn against him...yet he actually does seem to want to go down that road...despite him being a doctor.

  • ||

    This list might explain how commons law and natural law are not much in conflict, thus making it easy for a libertarian Republican to garner a majority of Americans to back him or her. Being an electable libertarian Republican is just a matter of having common sense.

    Although some might argue one or two points in the list, its mostly common sense:

    Global Warming: Based on contested Ideology - Go after it
    Local Pollution Law: mostly based on Science and commons law - Keep most laws intact if reasonable
    Asbestos Laws: Based on Science and commons law - Keep intact (even strengthen)
    Alimony: Based on contested Ideology - Go after it
    Minimal Child Support: Based on natural law - Keep intact if reasonable
    Income-based Child Support (where the kid's mom can get $3000 per month if you're rich): Based on contested ideology - Go after it
    DDT Bans: Based on Science and commons law - Keep intact
    16 as age of consent: Natural law as practiced by most countries - Keep intact
    18 as age of consent where even if she shows a fake ID you're still a felon: Based on ideology - Stop this nonsense
    Affirmative Action: Based on contested Ideology - Go after it
    VAWA and Sex Harassment laws: Based on contested Ideology - Go after it
    Monsanto Owning All Corn Seed: Based on Corruption - Go after it
    Anti-Prostitution Laws: Based on contested Ideology - Go after it
    Arresting johns: Based on insane feminist ideology never before practiced in history - Go after it
    Fed funding for Adult Abstinence Education: Based on contested ideology - Go after it
    Federal Abortion Laws of all kinds: Based on contested Ideology - Go after the federal aspect
    Anti-Smoking Laws: Based on Science, commons law (if on public property), worker safety concepts (if in a business) - Keep mouth shut if you are against this but want to get elected
    Requirement to drill a relief well beside an underwater oil well: Based on Science and commons law (but it seems BP + Obama + McCain were too busy washing each other's backs to care) -Enforce/Punish
    OSHA requirements for coal mines: Based on Science and the natural law against murder (worker safety considerations may have been considered leftist 100 years ago but if one still wants to argue this in 2010, one will be defeated over and over again in politics as your fellow conservatives will simply not stand for nonsense). - Enforce science-based laws

  • Maybe||

    not leftist statist for sure.

  • ||

    Also not religious statist.

    Unfortunately, although I support Rand Paul on Twitter to thousands of followers from several accounts, I expect him to ignore the laws that religious statists and feminist statists would want to keep (he might falsely believe that the "Grizzly Mamas" and "Smart Girl Power" types would support the National Organization for Women's Marxist positions).

    By being afraid of the religious statist and feminist types (it is redundant to say "feminist statist"), he would alienate the young male vote (defined as any man who can still get it up and likes attractive women) and limit himself to being "principled" on precisely the issues that are radioactive: that of whether businesses have the right to harm others on a caveat emptor basis (buyer and employee beware).

  • ||

    Maybe one reason Rand is stepping away from Libertarians is because you all have been so quick to point out your differences from him.

    Remember the "oh but we're not really racists, like Rand Paul" stint you were on a couple of weeks ago, rather than just backing up his eminently defensible (from a libertarian point of view) position?

    If you don't have his back, and since you are generally perceived by the public at large as slightly hinky to begin with, you can hardly blame him for not wanting to call himself a Libertarian.

    I agree with a lot of Libertarian thought as well, but not everything. Most people who identify themselves as Libertarians can't even agree on every topic. I don't bother identifying myself as anything anymore, since I know that as soon as I essay an opinion differing slightly from someone else's orthodoxy, they'll disclaim me, or start a "purity" witch hunt.

    It would probably improve our situation in this county in general if we stopped affiliating ourselves with "Isms" and simply worked on particular ideas with those who agree with us on them, like small government, and freedom of choice. If there are disagreements, we can work those out after we hit the big issues, instead of getting all territorial about our ideological purity.

  • ||

    Liber, uh, libuh, libra, What? If it ain't communist/socialist then I don't have a clue what you bitter-clingers are talking about.

    OsamaHusseinIslamObama 2012′
    (the terrorist-Uighur-ACORN-media choice)
    -It’s never too early to campaign-

  • ||

    Another republican wackadoodle(where do they find them) Here is a guy whose income is 50% or more derived from government funds but is opposed to big government. He is just like the seniors with medicare and veterans with the VA who want to stop goverment involvement in healthcare. Theses folks do not want goverment involvement that benefits someone else.

  • ||

    Veterans have earned their free health care. They served their country for it and may have risked their lives or withstood an injury for that.

    What will it do for military recruiting if you suddenly give free medical care to people who haven't earned it?

    Seniors also deserve the medical care as a benefit from having paid into social security for a lifetime. If you want to say that a 40 year old dying of cancer should have the right to cash out on the social security benefits he probably won't live to see if he doesn't pay for care now...that might be something to look at. But I served in the military partly because I thought ahead that I might get cancer before retirement age...so I earned VA benefits upfront.

    Either way, the current VA and Medicare systems can be seen as pension funds the beneficiaries have heavily paid into. Giving free care to those who haven't previously paid into the system, will bankrupt the system.

  • Chu-hua Zhu||

    "Veterans have earned their free health care. They served their country for it and may have risked their lives or withstood an injury for that."
    Moroni statolatry. Standing armies are nothing but gangs of thugs. They belong in prison for their crimes, they do not deserve free healthcare.

  • ken||

    For information on what actual Libertarians are doing, please see: http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  • Chu-hua Zhu||

    Rand Paul is a douchebag. I don't give a flying fuck if he's the spawn of Lysander Spooner and Wendy McElroy, the guy is a wishy-washy populist pseudo-right wing idiot who never says anything important. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on, I hope he gets the gout while hanging out in the Beltway swamp.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement