Rand Paul: People are Calling for a "Libertarian Moment"

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) explains that the good people of the U.S. are calling out for a "libertarian moment."

His comments came during an address to the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas at the Texas GOP convention here. Liberty, he said, “infuses traditional conservatism with the excitement, the energy, the outreach that we need.” Libertarian views and traditional conservative values complement each other, Paul added.

“The interesting thing about it is, as I go around the country, no matter who I talk to, whether it’s the establishment — the wealthy who support our party sometimes — or the poor, people say it’s time, time for this libertarian moment, this liberty moment,” he said. “It’s no longer something that scares people, it’s what [makes] people say, we can’t run the same-old same-old, we’re not going to win with the same-old, same-old.”

He was speaking to a Republican Liberty Caucus group in Texas, where he talked about his outreach plans for non-traditional Republican types. 

He called for reforming the criminal justice system so it doesn’t disproportionately hit minorities and poor people; school choice; and promoting policies that help economic development in poorer areas.

“You have to show up, you have to show you care, people have to believe that you care and then we’ll win, be the dominant party,” he said. “In Texas you are, but we’re not nationally.”

Whole thing.

He's right that a GOP that becomes libertarian—more socially tolerant and inclusive and actually dedicated to limiting the size, scope, and spending of government—could become the dominant party nationally. It would also be a radically different Republican Party (and a better one).

We've written a thing or two about the Libertarian Moment here at Reason over the years. Though all signs are pointing to a Libertarian Era, amirite?

Another way of talking about this is to say, Libertarianism 3.0, you're ready for your closeup!

Hat tip: Veronique de Rugy

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    WHAT DO WE WANT?

    A LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT!

    WHEN DO WE WANT IT?

    WHENEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR!

  • Brett L||

    Well played.

  • Paul.||

    I'm afraid a 'moment' is all we're ever gonna get.

    And comments broken... again?

  • Tonio||

    The skwerlz are angry today.

  • Tonio||

    Dammit. Earlier a comment didn't go through, but now seems fine.

  • Florida Man||

    The people want a libertarian "moment" then back to moar freez stuff!

  • Tonio||

    ^This. Yeah, they want to cut all those programs from which others benefit, but touch their pet program and they go ballistic. And the politicians know that and endlessly play the voters.

  • ||

    The comments over at Politico are a treat. The commenting system here is not.

  • From the Tundra||

    Politico is vomit inducing. The system here is more about honing rage to a keen edge.

  • Almanian!||

    A "treat". Your ideas are.....strange, and troubling, yet I am intruiged, and am interested in subscribing to your newsletter.

  • ||

    It's Warty. Subscribing to his newsletter is just a euphemism for being locked in his basement for a decade being tentacle raped on a bi-weekly basis.

  • Almanian!||

    You know me....so well, jesse....

    *averts eyes*

  • Florida Man||

    Bi-weekly? I assume you mean twice per week.
    http://i.word.com/idictionary/Biweekly

  • Sudden||

    Maybe he means once a week you're raped by men, womyn, and not so rigidly cisgendered people simultaneously.

  • ||

    You realize that your linked definition says it means either, no?

    Although I could get behind fortnightly.

  • Florida Man||

    Yes that is why I linked it. You could have meant once every two weeks vs twice per week. I assumed you went with the more frequent definition.

  • ||

    I suppose, but in publishing terms bi-weeklies are papers published twice monthly, which is why I chose that particular term to link rape and newsletters.

  • Florida Man||

    Clever. I missed that thread in the thought process.

  • Sudden||

    Florida Man thought you meant the more frequent version given Warty's insatiable appetites. Florida Man also doesn't understand how many prisoners Warty keeps in his basement dungeon. Basement comes pretty cheap on price per SF in Cleveland.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

  • ||

    Just don't subscribe to Warty's RSS feed. You barely get through one rape before the next rape is posted.

    AND THERE IS NO UNSUBSCRIBE BUTTON

  • Brett L||

    "The Colonel with his wee, beady eyes and the chemicals that make you crave his chicken fortnightly!"

  • SugarFree||

    There's no such things as Bi-Weeklies... there are only Gay-Weeklies that haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    +69 Dan Savages

  • ||

    Oh, do things work here now? Well hot diggity cocksucker.

    readinamazement John Brown • 2 days ago
    Sure, you are correct, but what has that got to do with the GOP nomination process?

    RNC Chairtool Rancid Prebious told the rabble base that their demographic is dwindling and will be insignificant by 2020 if they do not change. The result was to ignore that garbage and double down in the wars on women, minorities, gays, elderly, youth and every other demographic they can identify for that special dose of hate.

    Which of three types of cow pies will a majority of Americans clamor to eat?

    The Libertoon flavor (Rant Paul will replace his daddy as the least effective faction leader) is hilarious. Take us back to the 18th century in that simplistic way that did not even work that well then.

    The social conservative (Tbag) flavor wants a real nut job - think Perry, Cain, Bachmann, Palin or Nugent. Yeah, that will cause all the groups they hate to vote GOP.

    The Mitt flavor, which will do the worst of the Libertoon and social conservative flavor actions but has the presence to be able to lie about it.
  • cw||

    Somebody is angry.

  • From the Tundra||

    This guy votes and, presumably, is capable of reproduction.

    Scary.

  • ||

    This is why you should support SnipStarter, where we strongly propagandize encourage voluntary, crowd-funded sterilization. You can start a Snippit for this commenter and see if his friends agree that his generation of imbeciles is enough.

  • Sudden||

    Wait, I can actually nominate people for sterilization and upon raising the funds for it pitch them on the idea?

    I think I've found a new hobby

  • ||

    Theoretically, were I not lazy, had coding skills, and maybe a flair for marketing, then yes you could.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    Thats a good line, though I would stop after lazy because I didn't feel like thinking up any additional clever...[leans back and begins playing angry birds on iphone]

  • Almanian!||

    GAAAH! MY EYES!!!!! MY BRAIN!!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!

    *covers eyes with one hand and flails about with other arm*

  • Raston Bot||

    A post that animated should come with a .gif.

  • Almanian!||

    I nominate "Head Exploding in Scanners" gif.

  • Paul.||

    That comment is a word salad of wtf.

  • ||

    Oh, I like his taxonomy of the Right. Mitt, Tbag, and Libertoon wings, all composed of hateful rabble, all presided over by Chairtool Rancid.

  • SugarFree||

    Puns are so funny.

  • ||

    Do you think Chairtool Rancid has a cape? And does he talk like Skeletor, or does he have an evil English accent?

  • Trouser-Pod||

    Maybe he's related to Chairface Chippendale?

  • Bobarian||

    So a cape and an English accent.

  • Paul.||

    Oh those were puns...

    Bravo!

  • SugarFree||

    Either that or the commenter is having some sort of progstroke. Both mean something is going wrong with his brain.

  • ||

    It's not a progstroke, NutraSweet. It's an outragegasm.

  • SugarFree||

    Go back to your ragejack, broccoli whore.

  • ||

    I thought you weren't going to mention my vegisexuality any more, you bigot!

  • SugarFree||

    Vegisexuality is a lifestyle, not something you are born with. We thought you would out-grow it, but when you moved right next to a farmer's market we knew we had lost you to perversion forever.

    And no, I don't want any cantaloupe!

  • ||

    CANTALOUPE IS NOT A VEGETABLE YOU PERVERT

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, like you suddenly draw the line at musk melons.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Stop triggering me!!!!!

  • SugarFree||

    I'm sorry. I forgot you were a trans-melon, trashy.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Ahem, it's trans*@-melon, not trans-melon.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, you you are really a trans-email address?

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    *sobbing* I was born different from other email addresses. Even as early as the AOL days, everybody knew I wasn't like the hotmails and the yahoos. Netscape knew. Opera knew. It just took a few years for me to... *hurk*... to admit to myself what I truly am. I am not an email address, I am a cantaloupe. Now I am just working to make sure my digital presence reflects what I truly am on the inside.

  • SugarFree||

    There, there, mon petite pervert.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Senator Paul will probably be one of many from the Republican Party who will be running around in a frenzy come 2016 in an attempt to become the Republican Presidential Candidate. They will all be bad-mouthing and stabbing each other in the back. Then, when the choice is finally made, they will all be scrambling to kiss the candidate's rear end in unison. In any event, I would be very surprised to see Senator Paul get the nomination.

    Even if he gets it, when he gets to The White House you can be sure that he won't be pushing any libertarian agenda in particular. He will then become a "captive" of the already entrenched government bureaucracy, the demands of Congress and special interest groups, and so on. Reality will set in. In summary, every President of The United States of America has grandiose plans, but only a small percentage of these dreams ever come true. Again, I doubt we will see him in The White House come 2017.

  • cw||

    only a small percentage of these dreams ever come true.

    Reason enough to support Paul.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    cw,

    Bet you we will have a woman President come 2017.

  • Uncle Jay||

    In other words, if you like Obama, you'll love Hillary.

  • VicRattlehead||

    And you're secretly masturbating to the thought of serving at the feet of your new queen, like any true totalitarian zealot.

    can you move to Venezuela and join the rest of your communist idiot friends in state induced poverty?

  • Almanian!||

    OK. Comments work with Chrome, not with IE. But only sometimes.

    Got it.

    *shakes fist at skwerlz, makes note to further reduce contributions to Reason this year*

  • WTF||

    Squirrels running wild for you too? This is a test.

  • Almanian!||

    *peeks from beneath covers - hisses - "YESS!"*

  • PapayaSF||

    Oh, how I wish this were true, but I suspect not. There are vast numbers of people who simply cannot conceive of solutions to problems that do not involve the federal government. They see the world as filled with greedy and criminal corporations that will kill us all, without the benevolent protection of government.

    There are tactics that might work. Libertarians (and the GOP) should always be highlighting the wastefulness of government: stupid and outdated laws, ineffective and counter-productive bureaucracies filled with over-paid drones, billions of dollars wasted every day. The power of networks over hierarchies. Trying multiple, creative solutions to problems, instead of one, rigid, centrally-controlled one.

    The FDA-vs.-Wooden-Cheese-Boards case is perfect. Use it to drive a wedge between foodies and statists. Do the same thing with vitamins, alternative medicine, AirBnB, carshare services, etc.

  • Almanian!||

    There are vast numbers of people who simply cannot conceive of solutions to problems that do not involve the federal government

    This times 1000.

    I recall a chat with some *usually* sane friends in which I jokingly referred to creating Almanian-topia on a piece of land.

    Mrs. Derp protested. "But I want clean water that's not filled with chemicals...."

    I literally stopped dead for a minute, staring...."Because a change in government or no government suddenly means chemicals appear in water??"

    I stopped bothering after that...

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Wait, I'm confused. Who is Mrs. Derp married to?

  • Paul.||

    Mr. Derp.

  • ||

    So are they like on a break?

    And why would she chose Almanian! as her free cheat date?

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Hex, the friendly agendered college student.

  • SweatingGin||

    YOU DON'T REFER TO HEX AS MRS! THAT'S GENDERED!

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, duh! I mean, it's us (government) vs them (teh corporations)!

    Government is the people, and teh corporations are teh rich!

    If it wasn't for government protecting us, we would all be enslaved by teh rich who would turn the countryside into a wasteland in the process!

    Everything good in the world comes from government!

  • Sudden||

    Our government is, by design, incrementalist in its change. And the momentum of the state is on a century of creeping growth inertia. While the libertopia positions are fun to discuss as inside beisbol for us longtime intellectual adherents to the philosophy of liberty, we have to keep in mind that there are a great deal of people who cannot imagine the farthest edges of our philosophy in the current moment because of the ubiquity of state-based "solutions". That libertarian moment Rand discusses isn't the full extension of libertarian philosophy to government, but rather the promise of a shift in the public's desire to a genuinely more limited direction. Sometimes you have to tinker at that margins before you gain the capital to make a more robust change.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like a movement to start repealing legislation and regulation, instead of making more. That would be nice.

    But it will never happen.

  • Raston Bot||

    Next time ask them if they know the #1 discharger of toxic chemicals into our waterways. In Virginia, far and away the top polluter is the DOD's base in Roanoke that produces nitroglycerin. Clean Water Act gets trumped by national security every time. Over the past decade, the coal-powered electricity producers have decreased their toxic discharges. The DOD has increased.

  • SweatingGin||

    The FDA-vs.-Wooden-Cheese-Boards case is perfect. Use it to drive a wedge between foodies and statists.

    This made me have the fun thought of a reversal to a policy of mandatory aging cheese on wooden boards (even ones that shouldn't be aged, of course.)

  • From the Tundra||

    That drug war movie is another good option. I've sent it to a couple of proggie friends and they were completely shocked.

    I would like to think we are reaching a tipping point with regard to crazy-ass government. Asset forfeiture, absurd licensing requirements, kidnapping children for mental health reasons... There are certainly many angles to work.

  • WTF||

    The FDA-vs.-Wooden-Cheese-Boards case is perfect. Use it to drive a wedge between foodies and statists. Do the same thing with vitamins, alternative medicine, AirBnB, carshare services, etc.

    Sure, those things may be bad, but it's nothing compared to the evil of War on Womyns!!!11!!!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    They see the world as filled with greedy and criminal corporations that will kill us all, without the benevolent protection of government.

    On the other side of the coin, they see the world as filled with gay, drug-addled, illegal immigrant, baby killing and welfare-cheating criminals that will kill us all, without the benevolent protection of government. Statists gonna' state. Which is why we will never actually have a libertarian moment.

  • pmains||

    The FDA-vs.-Wooden-Cheese-Boards case is perfect. Use it to drive a wedge between foodies and statists. Do the same thing with vitamins, alternative medicine, AirBnB, carshare services, etc.

    Behold the Derp!

    AirBnb is evil because black people have less capital and are not able to charge rents as high as white people charge. It's the old Marxist delusion about the rich inevitably getting richer and the poor inevitably getting poorer.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    PapayaSF,

    On the contrary. This country is in the bad shape it is in today BECAUSE government AND corporations have worked together to make it that way. Think about it. The two move together. Iraq and Afghanistan are excellent examples of government and private contractors working together to create a recipe for disaster.

  • PapayaSF||

    The corporations need the government to do a lot of their evil deeds. And without government subsidies, cronyism, regulatory capture, etc., they are much more susceptible to the decisions and actions of customers and competitors.

  • VicRattlehead||

    very true and if you can put that together how the hell cant you put it together that both the top "two" parties are really just one singular party that does the same shit no matter who is in charge? and that the only way to change it is to limit the power that they can impose upon us through force of law by removing the stupid and frivolous laws that do nothing more than police honest men.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're never see that Pro-choice on everything sign at a GOP gathering.

  • sarcasmic||

    You've got the straw man on the ropes! Give it another left!

  • cw||

    Or at a Team Blue gathering.

  • sarcasmic||

    You kidding? Team Blue will abort just about anything. The economy. The health care system. The value of the dollar. Our liberty.

  • cw||

    My meaning is that Team Blue is only pro-choice on a very small list of things.

    Goddamn, Reason, fix your commenting system!!!

  • cw||

    My meaning is that Team Blue is only pro-choice on a very small list of things.

    Goddamn, Reason, fix your commenting system!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    Choice equals abortion. I had a very confusing conversation with a Team Blue member on the subject of school choice. She thought I meant abortions in schools, which she was all in favor of. When I finally made it clear that I meant giving students and parents a choice of what school to go to, she got angry.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    School choice is bad because you have a responsibility to care for and protect children that are complete strangers.

    Abortion in schools is good because any proud and strong womyn has no responsibility to care for and protect a child that she created.

  • Trouser-Pod||

    She thought I meant abortions in schools, which she was all in favor of.

    To be fair, there just isn't enough child-killing going on these days. At least,not for some people.

  • pmains||

    That certainly the position of most substitute teachers.

  • Christophe||

    Yes, but no one gets a choice in the matter.

  • cw||

    And you're right: only the purest of pure libertarians are pro-abortion.

  • sarcasmic||

    And gay marriage. There's nothing more libertarian than using force of government to redefine a word and enable people to initiate lawsuits against those who disagree.

  • Eric Bana||

    to redefine a word

    Definitions of words change. Cultural practices, products, and perspectives do too. Otherwise, there would be a lot more stoning in the world.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. And it is the duty of the government to enforce the meanings of words. This way people can initiate lawsuits against evildoers who commit thoughtcrimes. That is true libertarianism.

  • Eric Bana||

    I would prefer that the government didn't try to define "marriage." Otherwise, you might get laws that tried to prohibit interracial couples from marrying. That's none of government's business.

    I also think business owners (or any private organizations) should be able to choose to serve or not serve whomever they want because of their property rights, even if the decisions are silly.

  • sarcasmic||

    *phhpt*

    Then you're not a true libertarian. True libertarians not only want the government to define marriage, but they also want to give thoughtcrime victims the ability to get justice in court.

  • Eric Bana||

    I'm sorry I'm not a true libertarian.

    I also like your use of the word "thoughtcrime." In reference to the belief that it is sinful or somehow depraved for a person to want to be in a relationship with another person of the same sex, I would use "silly, backwards belief based in large part on the blind veneration of a book written in part by ancient, bronze-aged goat herders."

    But you keep using "thoughtcrime." It has such a nice, Orwellian touch. Even if I don't want an Orwellian state.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The Mitt flavor, which will do the worst of the Libertoon and social conservative flavor actions but has the presence to be able to lie about it.

    It never ceases to amaze me how people such as this can transform a quintessential Rockefeller Republicrat like Mitt Romney into a fire breathing anarchist who wants to turn back the clock to the glory days of the Republic as it existed before the War of 1812.

  • cw||

    Revolutionary Truth, dude.

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed. Pre-election I had a few dates with a woman who swore she'd leave the country if Huckabee or Romney were elected. I tried to explain that they were very different politically, to no avail.

  • craiginmass||

    "People are calling for...."

    Too bad he's not it!

    This is the ultimate in populism, which should be against the grain for true libertarians. It's the modern version of the pols who claim "I make the sun come up in the morning".

    His views are pretty much lockstep with GOP establishment platforms - that is, against reproductive choices (even in cases of rape and incest).
    On drugs "The younger Paul has long distanced himself from his father’s pro-legalization stances. "

    On immigration "I do not support amnesty" (which puts him far to the right of even Ronald Reagan).

    Sad that anyone buys his crap. As we always say in the business world "everything is easy for the person who doesn't have to actually do it".

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Rand Paul terrifies you. How utterly delicious. Have fun shitting your pants.

  • cw||

    His views are pretty much lockstep with GOP establishment platforms

    You mean like his skepticism of foreign adventurism?

    against reproductive choices (even in cases of rape and incest).

    Again, only the purest of pure libertarians are pro-abortion.

  • craiginmass||

    So, only the "purest" don't find the Fiction Writer's views on this (very consistent with any real definition of libertarian) relevant?

    "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

  • cw||

    An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

    So I should just accept this axiom without question, eh?

  • Sudden||

    The split comes down to the "an embryo has no rights" portion. It is determining the point at which rights emerge that is the sticking point. Some place that at conception as that is when the distinctly unique human genome is present, some place it somewhere between 12-24 weeks of gestation as hominid form, heart beat, and brain activity become present, others place it after 24 weeks, and still others think it not till birth. There are reasonable scientific and bioethical arguments to be made on all these positions, but we have to accept the notion of some uncertainty about where that exists.

    Within that context, the sort of libertarian view on the issue should be against federal involvement (i.e. Roe) and allow the individual states to determine the time at which a union of sperm and egg becomes human.

  • cw||

    Don't let nuance and complexity get in craiginmass's way!

  • craiginmass||

    I don't think the fiction writer left much room there for debate.

    It gets back to what I said about populism. If there were such thing as true libertarianism, it would not be engaged (like Rand) in the full time pursuit of some middle ground. It would be more like Ayn....

    "Religion is for the weak minded"
    "Abortion is a moral right"
    etc.

    But it's not. Why? Well, because the Koch mainstream libertarianism is - I claim - just another disguise of the GOP/Right/Authoritarian/TeaParty.....well, the Republican Party.

    So, the Kochs were "not excited about Iraq", eh? Well how many hundreds of millions did they spend rallying up the people against this? ZERO. How many times did they stand up when it mattered - when trillions were being spent, tens of thousands were being hurt and millions were being deployed? A BIG FAT ZERO.

    Not too much nuance there. Instead of speaking out, they instead spent 100's of millions trying to get rid of the Prez who GOT US OUT of Iraq. Do you really think they would not have supported the war monger McCain over Obama? Of course they would have....

    Not too much complexity here. Rand is a populist from the GOP. He's taking whatever issues from the left which are popular and melding them with those from the right which save the Koch brothers money.

    The amazing thing about Rand is how far he has gone off-track before it even matters. I can't wait for the fun once he actually has to be asked questions about his stances.

  • Brandon Magoon||

    The prez who got us out of Iraq? You mean Bush?

  • VicRattlehead||

    Stop trying to pawn the republicrats that you prog-tards vote for on the reg.

    Libertarians are the only viable second party
    Dems and repubs are 100% without fail IDENTICAL in actions if you dont see that your fucking delusional with too much TV programming
    there is one party in the majority and bi-partisanship is a fucking lie, its the totalitarian statists which represent all of the dems and most of the repubs
    then there is the minority of libertarians which are almost exclusively labeled republican
    i know its hard looking up peoples voting records and thinking for yourself but if you dont want to keep looking like a pre-programmed salon munching idiot stop regurgitating obvious untruths

  • Thea||

    ^^This.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The Fiction Writers' guild is pro-choice -- why didn't you inform us of this sooner?! Long have libertarians treasured the wisdom of the Fiction Writers on every subject, especially given their vast experience in and knowledge of medical science and metaphysics.

  • Sudden||

    When he said fiction writers' guild, I just figured he was referring to the DailyKos comment section.

  • craiginmass||

    If you believe in the central tenants of Libertarianism - that we are Gods and that we have the power and right to make our own decisions, then there is no question. Ayn answered exactly how you'd predict....of course, she wasn't running for political office.

    I guess she was right about y'all:
    "Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservatism"

    So, let's go back to good ole liberalism. It works. Best.

  • Suellington||

    If by good ole liberalism you mean classical liberalism, then great, that would be a massive improvement. But you probably mean the shitty kind of liberalism that means more government and more taxes.

  • VicRattlehead||

    wow you are fucking clueless
    the central tenant of libertarianism is the Non-Agression Principal
    That we do not posses the right to force other people to do anything

    That we do not posses the right to take anything that does not belong to us

    That we do not posses the right to initiate force against others

    That we are responsible for our decisions and the consequences of those decisions

    That the governments ONLY responsibility to secure our basic natural rights from outside forces that do not want freedom in the world

  • From the Tundra||

    I'm losing track. Is this Tulpa?

    Oh, and as *we* say in the business world "fuck you, we're not buying"!

  • cw||

    I think craiginmass might be joefromlowell.

  • JPyrate||

    Why vote for Rand Paul ??? Why not. At this stage. What difference does it make ?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Again, only the purest of pure libertarians are pro-abortion.

    Hmm.

    I am deeply ambivalent about it. As with pretty much everything, I instinctively recoil from "always" and "never" statements.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    You may need to ask for a refund for your Secret Service sarcasm detection software. It is apparently malfunctioning.

  • tlapp||

    Maybe that old saying by Churchill is correct.

    We will eventually do the right thing after we have tried everything else.

  • craiginmass||

    The Kochs can't even make a comment board that works - and y'all want them to lead our great nation?

  • cw||

    So which is it? The Kochs are evil super geniuses who control everything, or they're too incompetent to even get an internet board to work?

  • VicRattlehead||

    it workds better than the O-care site

  • Christophe||

    Why is the background on fire behind Rand Paul? Is this subliminal messaging?

  • craiginmass||

    The guy and his friends here (the Kochs) are certainly mounting the Full Court Press of PR.

    I think he could make a lot of money by going into Televangilism - another similar job where he can talk about things and not do them.

  • cw||

    KOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCHKOCH

  • Rhywun||

    Koch - it's the new Bush.

  • sarcasmic||

    The picture was from the 2012 Republican National Convention.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAtrTM1v-c

  • ||

    Gawker no like Koch brother guy men! Gawker no buy from no now!

    Al Pastor The Flesh TacoUHamilton Nolan
    Today 11:38am
    jShare to Facebook
    iShare to Twitter
    rGo to permalink
    Is there a comprehensive list of products from Koch and subsidiaries?

    This would be very helpful in determining what products to avoid purchasing in the future.
  • Sudden||

    If the proggies manage to wipe yoga pants from the planet based on Koch Industries holding the Lycra trademark, then we will have definitive proof of their evil.

  • craiginmass||

    Note the new "Libertarianism 3.0"

    "David Koch ultimately became a major supporter of Romney, he withheld his “formal support” until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie declined to run and Romney had dispatched his GOP rivals."

    "The Kochs’ political network spent more than $400 million trying to unseat Barack Obama" (in favor of Romney, of course!).....

    Libertarianism 3.0 smacks of both populism - and, of course, of Fascism in the sense that it's a corporate-state connection. It's safe to say that without the protections of the big gubment, the Kochs wouldn't have 100's of millions to throw around. It's also very safe to say that the Kochs will personally benefit from any victories of chaos created.....being the owners of the largest private corporation in the country. When people die and get sick more (less regs, more pollution, fewer tort rights, etc.), their bottom line expands greatly. And, they don't have to share it all with those pesky stockholders (who often have opinions also)....

    How this can be considered "real freedom" is truly fascinating. It takes a certain kind of authoritarian personality (RWA) to believe that we are better off under greedy corporatists.

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Libertarianism 3.0 smacks of both populism - and, of course, of Fascism in the sense that it's a corporate-state connection.

    "Libertarians are Fascists because... well... because Citizens United!!!!!"

    It's safe to say that without the protections of the big gubment, the Kochs wouldn't have 100's of millions to throw around.

    "You didn't build that!!"

    It's also very safe to say that the Kochs will personally benefit from any victories of chaos created.....being the owners of the largest private corporation in the country.

    "Corporashuns are kulaks and wreckers!!!!!!"

    When people die and get sick more (less regs, more pollution, fewer tort rights, etc.), their bottom line expands greatly.

    "Corporashuns are out to kill off their customer base!!!!"

    And, they don't have to share it all with those pesky stockholders

    "Rich greedy CEOs!!!!"


    It's PB 2.0, with new "Random Cliche Generator" algorithms!!!

  • JPyrate||

  • sarcasmic||

    The biggest problem today is that the corporations control the government.

    But the government is us, we the people.

    So we need to wrest control of the government from the corporations.

    The way to do this is to give us, the people, more power by giving more power to the government. Then we the people through the government can control the corporations that control the government.

    What would never happen is that by empowering the government that is us that is controlled by the corporations, we will be empowering not us the government, but the corporations that control it. That would never happen because that's not the intent.

    Good intentions never have poor results.

    Power to the people!

  • Nicholas Sarwark||

    You could settle for some empty rhetoric designed to keep you on the GOP plantation hoping that one day they'll actually govern that way. It seems like people have been doing that since the 1980s without any good results.

    Alternatively, you could support an actual Libertarian Party.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    The what now? Never heard of that before. Do they have a newsletter I could subscribe to?

  • From the Tundra||

    How do you feel about colloidal silver?

  • MSimon||

    Blue.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Right, Nick.

    Let us know when the GOP is ready to jettison the Christian Right in order to make room for Libertarians. What, you think there is synergy between the two, or that the Christian Right is not a major force in the GOP? Don't make me laugh, unless of course a woman's right to choose, right to marriage, drug legalization, censorship, etc. are all just catch phrases for Libertarians.

    I look forward to the debates with Huckabee, Santorum, and Paul.

  • concerned cynic||

    A libertarian GOP would gain some voters, and lose the religious right and Catholic conservatives. Jewish neocons would not like libertarian noninterventionism, seeing it as letting Israel hang.

    The GOP tried libertarianism 50 years ago by going with Barry Goldwater, who barely got 40% of the vote. Goldwater would do better than that if he ran in 2016, but I doubt he would win.

    40% of Americans want a generous can-do public sector. This is the germ of truth in Mitt Romney's deplorably impolitic remark.
    Another 40% of Americans are libertarians or National Review conservatives, or enthusiastic believers in private property and business profit. The American President is elected by the middle quintile, made up of pragmatic centrists and voters who vote for a person instead of an ideology. In 1964 (1972), LBJ (Nixon) got this entire quintile.

    Common sense predicts that this middle quintile is vulnerable to seduction by Chris Christie. That is why the New York establishment decided to end his political career by hammering on Bridgegate. Christie is guilty of something that all politicians are guilty of: unsavoury friends.

    Rand Paul is the new Goldwater. IF by a fluke he were elected President, he would encounter a major problem. He could not count on a lot of people on both sides of Capitol Hill.

  • PapayaSF||

    It depends on how it's handled. True, most voters won't go for a purist libertarian candidate ("End Social Security and Medicare!"). But I don't think a reasonable effort in a libertarian direction would lose many religious right and other conservative types, not when the option is more years of another Democrat idiot.

    However, this is why I like Scott Walker: less obviously ideological, proven management ability, and (I think) easier for moderates to swallow, and harder for the left to demonize. Walker/Paul 2016!

  • Uncle Jay||

    There is a (supposed)provision in the Constitution regarding the separation of church and state. Too bad there isn't a like minded provision regarding separation of government and corporatism.

  • MSimon||

  • MSimon||

    Libertarian beats Eric Cantor:

    http://classicalvalues.com/201.....bertarian/

  • craiginmass||

    I know a lot of folks in VA....this guy beat Cantor basically because the white voters who turned out hate black and brown people.

    Is anti-immigration rhetoric what "real libertarians" run and win on?

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Legal Immigration? or Crimaliens?
    25 legal US citizens die each day at the hands of ILLEGAL ALIENS.
    More than guns, more than terrorists...
    There are more legal US citizens who need work than there are Illegal Aliens.
    What part of Illegal is so difficult to understand?

  • uhclem||

    "If you like your libertarianism you can keep your libertarianism." --Rand Paul

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Prepare for the Party Establishment (Dems & Repubs) to declare war on Libertarians.
    We Libertarians will be the new terrorists.
    We Libertarians will be accused of every crime and sin known to man and a few that are as yet unknown.
    We will be called anti-American and worse.
    The corrupt nature that has polluted the Established Party (there being little discernible difference between the two) demands an all-out-war.
    If the electorate ever got a peek at the self-centered greed that really lays at the heart of todays Party Establishment, they may not flock to Libertarianism, but they certainly won't be voting for the Party Establishment

  • Michael Hihn||

    He's right that a GOP that becomes libertarian—more socially tolerant and inclusive...

    When will HE (Rand) become socially tolerant? Or his dad?

    I've been in this movement since it began (Sep, 1960), and not once has the "movement establishment" ever addressed the majority of Americans who are fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. Imagine that. We've been the majority for at last 30 years (WSPQ) and squandered every single year.

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