Rand Paul

Will Rand Paul Mainstream Libertarianism on the Way to White House?

|

Updated with Meet the Press clips! Scroll to bottom.

The Sunday morning talk shows are abuzz with disussion about a long and interesting article about Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in The New York Times written by Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg. I'm not particularly familiar with Rutenberg's work, but Tanenhaus is a really sharp historian of ideology in American life and longtime respectful watcher of libertarianism (his bio of Whittaker Chambers is excellent; watch an interview Reason did with him here).

The Times profile is required reading for anybody interested in knowing more about Paul and, arguably as important, how the mainstream views him and will likely view him over the next couple of years.

Some snippets and commentary:

As Rand Paul test-markets a presidential candidacy and tries to broaden his appeal, he is also trying to take libertarianism, an ideology long on the fringes of American politics, into the mainstream. Midway through his freshman term, he has become a prominent voice in Washington's biggest debates — on government surveillance, spending and Middle East policy.

Ah, those furry, fabulous, freak-flag-flying fringes of American politics! As Matt Welch and I have been putting it, the U.S. of A. has been in the throes of ongoing Libertarian Moment for quite some time now, especially if you take a big-picture snapshot about attitudes toward government power (a record number think feds have too much power), about government "doing too much" (also at record levels), and broad acceptance of social tolerance (record highs for acceptance of things such as marriage equality and pot legalization).

In the piece, which includes interviews with Paul, he refuses to take the bait about "paleolibertarians" and apologias for the Confederacy that tripped up his father. Write Tanenhaus and Rutenberg:

Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy. One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was "not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs."…

Mr. Paul says he abhors racism, has never visited the institute and should not have to answer for the more extreme views of all of those in the libertarian orbit.

"If you were to say to someone, 'Well, you're a conservative Republican or you are a Christian conservative Republican, does that mean that you think when the earthquake happened in Haiti that was God's punishment for homosexuality?' Well, no," he said in an earlier interview. "It loses its sense of proportion if you have to go through and defend every single person about whom someone says is associated with you."

There's a lot in the piece about the rise of Ron Paul and the libertarian world from which he sprang (Reason's Brian Doherty is quoted). And there's this about Rand Paul's successful Senate run, in which he first fought off the GOP establishment's pick and then trounced his Democratic opponent in the general election:

His calls for slashing the budget and eliminating the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve resonated with Tea Party followers. And his criticism of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Patriot Act and detentions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had broad appeal.

"We underestimated Rand's ability as a political maneuverer," Mr. Skaggs, the former local [GOP] party chairman, said later.

Yeah, maybe. The implication here is that Paul is somehow pulling a fast one, as opposed to proceeding from basic libertarian principles which—mother of pearl!—have "broad appeal" with voters. Which they do.

The article ends with a scene from last fall's Liberty Political Action Conference, where Paul pere followed Paul fils on stage.

"I want a tiny revolution," said Dave Wahlstedt, from Minnesota, selling T-shirts that read, "Don't Drone Me Bro!" At a booth nearby, Matt DeVries, from Iowa, complained about the growing infringements of traffic cameras and speed traps. Other tables were sponsored by the Young Americans for Liberty, an outgrowth of Ron Paul's presidential bids.

"We exist to maintain the infrastructure to mobilize young people willing to work on a Rand Paul campaign," Jeff Frazee, the organization's leader and a former Ron Paul aide, said in an interview.

Read the whole thing.

Reason on Rand Paul.

Here are some clips of Paul talking and being talked about on Meet The Press:

Rand Paul Discusses RNC, NSA, Chris Christie and the GOP: Kentucky Sen Rand Paul discusses his opinion on NSA leaker Edward Snowden's actions, remarks on women made by Mike Huckabee at the RNC winter meeting and the future of the GOP. Watch here.

Rand Paul Talks Bipartisanship: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul discusses cooperation between political parties. Watch here.

Rand Paul on Hillary Run: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul talks about Hillary Clinton's potential 2016 run for president and whether her husband's transgressions will impact the race. Watch here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Maryland Mall Shooter Identified

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.

  1. Ok let’s try this.. First!

    1. Why not try for Best instead?

      1. One doesn’t “try” for Best, puny mortal.

        1. Indeed. One simply is.

    2. Do or do not, there is no try.

  2. “Coming of age in America’s first family of libertarianism ? he calls his father, a three-time presidential aspirant, “my hero” ? Rand Paul was steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology”,/i

    Nice … NYT called him narrow-minded and right-wing, but with plausible deniability.

    1. Fucked up the tags — take two:

      “Coming of age in America’s first family of libertarianism ? he calls his father, a three-time presidential aspirant, “my hero” ? Rand Paul was steeped in a narrow, rightward strain of the ideology”

      Nice … NYT called him narrow-minded and right-wing, but with plausible deniability.

        1. I always read Profeed when I see his name.

          Some sort of breeder grade dog food I think.

          1. I always Read PapayaSF as Papa Smurf.

  3. Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy. One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad ? you pick cotton and sing songs.”…

    “you pick cotton and sing songs” returns two hits on Google. The NYTs story and the above post. I’ll have to check the article for a citation.

    1. Yeah, I really like how the author completely neglected to drop pretty much any names that might help the reader make a decision for himself.

      1. Well, you can be certain…THEY are coming for him. THEY have eliminated Christie and you can bet your ass Paul is at the tippy top of their “threats to eliminate” list. Injecting his fathers baggage and the whiff of racism is just the start of the the media’s desire to discredit anything libertarian. And you can also count on the establishment right doing everything in their power to help them. He needs to be squeaky clean for almost 3 years.

        1. Doesn’t matter how squeaky clean he is, they’ll just take some ‘binders full of woman’ statement and go full on WAR ON WOMEN non-stop. The racism angle will simply be endless insinuation no matter what. It’ll be full Alinsky treatment on 11.

      2. I believe he’s referring to Walter Block.

        1. And Walter Block is great at delivering funny lines deadpan, so it’s believable that he said it, not believable that he meant it.

        2. No Tom DiLorenzo I think.

    2. Back when I used to frequent the site there were a couple of crazy “christian reconstructionist libertarians” and paleolibertarians who posted nutso stuff on THEIR OWN site or in other publications, not the Mises site.

      But the majority of people there (and I don’t much care for their strain of libertarianism) were just posting free market stuff. By majority I mean 99%.

      This is kind of a straw man. Liberalism or conservatism would never be held to this standard.

      1. Do you have a link to any of the “nutso stuff”?

        1. site: lewrockwell.com vacination

          You’re welcome.

          I have to quibble with LPW. It is more like 97% non crazy, versus 3% fringe. Perhaps 96.008% non crazy, versus the 3.002% crazy, if you count me among the nut cases.

          Still, we beat the pants off of NYT in the sanity department. They supported fucking de Blasio.

          1. What happened to the other 0.99%?

    3. Ok for some reason my comment I made 30 minutes ago hasn’t shown up.

      He’s referring to Walter Block, who is correct. The problem with slavery is that you can not quit.

      1. Not sure if it was Block or someone else who first made me aware that slaves in the antebellum south were typically treated better than Irish laborers, since nobody lost any money if an Irisman got killed.

        -jcr

        1. I’d like to see the proof of that. Losing laborers, even if they’re not slaves, isn’t costless, and more importantly, Irish laborers could quit their jobs. I feel like this is something that gets repeated by people trying to minimize the horrors of American slavery. I’m not saying the Irish had it great, but I’m gonna have to see some significant proof before believing they had it worse than slaves.

          1. This is a ridiculous argument against libertarianism. No serious libertarian advocates or excuses involuntary servitude whether it is practiced by the state in conscription or a plantation owner. The only modern advocates of slavery are the so-called liberals and conservatives who advocate mandatory military or other national service.

            The LRC types do have a point about the Civil War: it did not obtain justice for the Southern slaves.

            Rothbard and Block have argued that ownership of the plantations should have been awarded to the slaves since those properties had been built with slave labor, and that rights of homestead properly rested with the slaves. That’s hardly a pro-slavery position.

            Instead, Reconstruction was a disaster for many liberated slaves. Millions died of starvation, disease and exposure. See http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..-civil-war for a brief account. The Freedmen’s Bureau was a dismal and corrupt failure.

            The American Civil War did liberate the slaves, but then it left them without a society in which they could survive. Much of the LRC contempt for the Lincoln and Northern liberators is well deserved. Still, they did end the peculiar institution once and for all.

            1. The article actually says as many as a quarter of the four million ex-slaves either died or suffered from disease — not that millions died. Given the atrocious hygiene of the era, it’s not surprising that thousands became ill and died in “contraband” camps — more Civil War soldiers died of disease than on the battlefield. And since plantation slaves were relatively isolated, the movement of slaves after emancipation probably exposed many to diseases they hadn’t been exposed to before. In short, the book is one of those professorial publish-or-perish “I have to write about something ‘new'” monographs about an unsurprising and predictable fact that the prof has to present as ground-breaking.

        2. From memory, someone was building rail line and needed cheap labor. They asked some plantation owners if they could rent their slaves. The slave owner said slaves were way to valuable for such dangerous work. The slave owners further stated: “Go hire the Irish, they work cheap, and no one cares if they die”.

          I believe this story was in a PBS documentary: “Out of Ireland”.

        3. It depends on how you define “better.” Irish laborers were treated better because they could leave — and because they couldn’t be subjected to corporal punishment. But because they could be easily replaced (and their work was often temporary anyway) they were much preferred for dangerous jobs.

      2. He’s referring to Walter Block, who is correct. The problem with slavery is that you can not quit.”

        Um, what? That’s a pretty big deal, enough that saying it’s “not so bad” is definitely not a correct statement. And not being able to quit enables a lot of abuse that wouldn’t be possible.

        1. Check your sarcasm detector. I don’t expect NYT “journalists” to have one, but I expect better from HnR regulars. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

  4. We can hope, but I can already hear the shrieks of the proggies, “Raaaaciiiiiist!!!”

    1. We can hope, but I can already hear the shrieks of the porgies Reason Magazine, “Raaaaciiiiiist!!!”

      FTFY

  5. you pick cotton and sing songs

    Phil Robertson is a resident scholar at Mises?

      1. “Old Man ReeBAH!”

  6. Wow, nice hit piece at NYT on Paul.

    Such a blatant attempt to marginalize him; kinda sad too, cause at the end they try to isolate Paul from even libertarians.

    Good luck with that, NYT. GOod to know they’re scared at least.

    1. Oh, there’s a lot of people scared. The left, the establishment right, the media… It’s a long roe to ho (see what I did there, tow the lion…) but with as fucked up as the government is right now, libertarianism is a legitimate option to explore for those looking for a fix. I think our biggest potential threat will be their attempt to associate libertarianism with racism. We need to be ready to explain that our philosophy precludes racism by its very nature.

      1. That is where they know they have the political edge. They can always say, ‘libertarians may tolerate you, but they wont force a cake decorator to serve you against their will at the threat of losing their license.’ That strategy has worked for them since 1964, I don’t see it failing now.

        1. If the economy goes into defib like in 2008, which is completely possible and even likely, nobody will care.

  7. Until libertarianism is not identified with selfish anarchism by people who know little about it, it will have trouble going “mainstream”.

    OTOH, Rand’s pretty good with working in thought-provoking soundbites. E.g., on today’s MTP he pointed out that spending a trillion dollars you don’t have is a *true* “extremist” position.

    1. Why? You know a better master than your own self?

      1. Nope.

        You know that many people prefer to have someone else, um, provide for them?

        1. I guess it should have been more obvious to me then that we are saying the same thing.

    2. “Selfish”

      Selfish, adj. – I keep what I make or trade for, and you do the same. Let’s not pull guns on one another for the purpose of theft, extortion, or appropriation.

      I can see why you’d think anarchists are a bunch of selfish nutjobs, unlike an enlightened statist like yourself.

  8. “Rand Paul…on the way to White House”? I doubt he has any real chance against Hillary “I Voted for the Iraq War but My Supporters Won’t Care” Clinton.

    I suspect even with Bridgegate / “Fat and Furious,” Tony Soprano’s brother-in-law has a better (though still remote) chance.

    1. I doubt he has any real chance against Hillary “I Voted for the Iraq War but My Supporters Won’t Care” Clinton.

      But he *may* have a real chance against Hillary “What Difference At This Point Does It Make” Clinton.

      1. Someone should try that “What difference at this point does it make” with a cop one of these days.

        “Look I smashed into that guy’s car, his car is wrecked, does matter if I slid on a patch of ice, or if I’m drunk off my ass, what difference at this point does it make?”

        1. Follow it up with a “I take full responsibility” and I think you’re onto something.

  9. The NY Times forgot to make a Southern Poverty Law Center reference. I am disappoint.

    1. The Southern Poverty Law Center is much like the Holy Roman Empire, in that it wasn’t Roman, not really an Empire, and it’s holiness was questionable.

  10. If Rand Paul can be something of a Goldwater figure, and he recasts the Republicans (and “conservatism”) into something more libertarian, then he’ll be the best thing that’s happened to libertarians yet.

    Actually having a libertarian in the White House in 2016 is probably too much to hope for. Although, if he were running against Hillary, who is remarkably unappealing, anything could happen.

    1. Ah yes the Hilderbeast. I can’t wait to see the sad and pathetic attempt the Democrats make at trying to make her look cool.

      My god she is just awful. They really should have invested more charisma points in her character.

      1. It won’t really matter that Hillary isn’t as young or hip as Obama; it will be “cool” to vote for the First Female President.

        1. Perhaps, but I think the first female president doesn’t have the same cool factor as the first black president.

          The effect will be there, but I think to a much lessor degree.

          1. Hillary is Nixon but less appealing. Has there ever been a more manufactured, damaged, cynical, outright dislikeable presidential candidate?

            In the highly unlikely circumstance that Rand wins the nomination, he and we would be fortunate to get to run against Hillary.

            1. I would say Gore was the most unlikable nominee I’ve ever seen. A mannequin would have beaten GWB.

              1. Worse than Kerry? By 2004, GWB had endured three years of being hated on from every corner of the media and the public sphere, and against him the Dems run a 0-charisma rich asshole who nobody thinks is particularly good at anything. Not a single person I talked to in 2004 had anything remotely positive to say about Kerry, or knew any of his positions or history, because they didn’t care–they were voting against Bush, that was all that mattered.

                1. Hillary is a self-evident sociopath who has been a miserable failure in literally every federal role she’s ever occupied. On top of that, she’s old, deeply charmless, and has all the political baggage in the world.

                  If Obama turned out the masses in 2008 due to his status as an “elegant” blank slate while Romney kept them away due to a lack of passion, what do you think the presence of Hillary Clinton, the ultimate charmless coattails rider, will do to the the Democratic Party in 2016?

                  My prediction is that Cruz slaughters her. All of the political punditry in the world won’t convince demoralized voters broken by the Obama administration to turn out for this harpy, much less after Cruz destroys her in the debates.

        2. “It won’t really matter that Hillary isn’t as young or hip as Obama; it will be “cool” to vote for the First Female President.”

          They may market her that way, but I don’t think it actually works that way.

          1. According to most of the idiots I know, it does. Because women in America are evidently so oppressed still.

      2. They really should have invested more charisma points in her character.

        The pearlescent fangs made the feminist wet and gooey inside. The exchange was more than worth it to them as they don’t even notice what assburgers they are much less a leader of their tribe.

    2. If Rand Paul can be something of a Goldwater figure, and he recasts the Republicans (and “conservatism”) into something more libertarian, then he’ll be the best thing that’s happened to libertarians yet.

      I agree. He doesn’t even have to win the nomination; if he turns out to be a strong contender, he’ll make it “OK” for Republicans with aspirations to higher office to be much more libertarian than they tend to be now. Reagan in 1976 similarly made it OK for “conservatives”, although they’d’ve had a much tougher go of it had it not been for the grass roots tax revolt and the takeover of many GOP organiz’ns by evangelicals.

      The opposite could occur in the case of a debacle such as that of Goldwater for prez, where such a candidate wins the nomination and then gets slaughtered by a perceived moderate in the gen’l election, convincing the GOP for over a decade not to let “conservatives” lead. However, I just don’t see that as at all likely in Rand’s case.

      Will Rand Paul mainstream libertarianism? Even if he winds up in the White House, the answer is no. Few Americans are attracted to an “-ism” of any kind; many are strongly repelled by the very notion of ideologic principle, and most of those who aren’t are at least suspicious of it.

      1. “-ism” is seen as a Eurasian thing. Americans tend to go by RAW’s maxim, “Convictions make convicts.” The only -ism they go for is pragmatism, because it’s really the absence of -ism. Even those who identify as religiously motivated eschew -ism, relying instead on divine inspiration, which is unpredictable and hence not able to be fit into an -ism.

  11. You mean the guy who opposes the freedom to marry act, thinks the government should outlaw abortion and who hires aides that think the South should rise again? No, he will not mainstream libertarianism. What is it with the fascination of writers on this site for crackpot right wingers?

    1. Sense you mentioned the south rising again. I’m curious. If say the South did declare it’s independence would you support sending troops to do violence against your fellow Americans in order to keep them in the Union whether they liked it or not?

      Whose position is the radical one here?

      1. No, I’m essentially with Gore Vidal who thought the South was so retrograde that they should have been able to go its own path to slave rebellion and third world status.

        1. You think?

          Is this the Gore Vidal you are “with”?

          http://www.slate.com/articles/…..tist_.html

      2. She hit on all three of the sanctioned anti-Rand talking points. Where do the American Left get programmed with their talking points? I’m being completely serious. Their groupthink hivemind talk is amazing. Every one I talk too uses not only the same rhetoric, but the same vocabulary ad naseum. Do they all have to plug into the Daily Show every single evening or something to subsist?

        1. Did I also mention that he’s a plagiarist (4th talking point) who plagiarizes from the movie “Gattaca” (5th talking point)

          1. Please. As if you’ve ever read anything he’s written to start with.

            Fuck off and die, preferably in a fire.

            1. Not a fire – someone’s property could be damaged. Think, moreso, of her choking on a veggie burger.

        2. As you’ve likely noticed, it’s working for them. 1000 people chanting the same carefully chosen words in unison sounds a lot more attractive than 1000 people freely chattering about liberty.

        3. I find it disturbing when a lefty touts the uniformity of thinking and opinion within their ranks and decries the lack of the same cohesiveness on the right. Don’t they ever have an original thought?

    2. D+

    3. Where did Rand Paul do any of this?

      Sorry we are so crackpot. We can’t all be as sane and responsible as an “american socialist.”

      Just curious: how much surplus value do you think our capitalist overlords will be allowed to keep after the revolution?

      Assuming they are allowed to live, of course.

      1. Do you think “American Socialist” actually understands anything about socialism, or is he just your typical college retard?

        1. I’m thinking she is trolling us, and doesn’t really believe in anything except how good it feels to get people riled up.

          1. If you mean by sincerely believing in everything I write then, yes, I’m a troll. Why are conservatives and libertarians so ready to dismiss an opinion that may not get a lot of support as trolling?

            1. Because much of it is illogical and contradictory?

            1. I’ve got infrared goggles for Mary where she registers as a white flaming ball of hotness.

            2. Not Mary, but I’m awfully glad the socialist ranks are increasing.

      2. I’m for taxing rich people, who do incredibly valuable things like sell securities on the computer with other computers, at whatever rate Bill O’Reilly says he is currently paying in taxes. You know, the 60 or 70% he currently pays on capital gains, right now.

        1. Good luck with that. If you confiscated the complete net worth of both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett (about 65b) you’d have enough money to run the US government for less than two months. But, yeah, go ahead, the rest of us will wait for the moment when you run out of other people’s money.

          1. Actually that 65 billion would only last a week.

            1. Are we considering tax revenue from all sources?

              I’ll be more accurate.

              Gates and Buffet’s combined net worth: 125b

              Monthly US government expenditure: 318b

              Amount borrowed monthly (spent minus tax revenue): 137b

              So, their combined wealth would last roughly one month.

              1. It would stop deficit spending for one month. Not fully fund the gov.

                I do think that’s an important distinction.

          2. I’d settle for starters making people that make millions selling stocks online with other computers–a majority of the income for the top 1% income bracket– pay the same percentage of their income in social security taxes as the rest of the 53% moocher class

            1. not being robbed = ‘mooching’

            2. You realize if I earn income, pay taxes on it, and then choose to invest my savings, I will then pay the additional capital gains taxes if I’m so fortunate as to realize a gain? Further, if you’re talking about the very wealthy, you shouldn’t lose sight of the fact they can vote with their feet.

            3. selling stocks online with other computers–a majority of the income for the top 1% income bracket

              I somehow doubt that.

        2. I’m for taxing rich people

          Ohhhhh. So you feel it’s okay to steal that which you haven’t earned because 51% of the population wants the loot.

          Your philosophy is immoral and disgusting.

          1. Part of the reason why you guys routinely win 1% of the vote is that you libertarians have such an obvious disdain for people that you live around.

            1. No, we have disdain for those who attempt to justify theft as being moral.

              1. And you can’t distinguish taxes from theft

                  1. Taxes are theft.

                    FTFY

                1. And you can’t distinguish taxes from theft

                  Theft is obtaining something of value without the agreement of the owner. Taxes do have that agreement. However, in both cases the owner has no real choice.

                2. It’s pretty obvious who here can’t distinguish taxes from theft.

              2. I love it when a socialist asks me why I’m “carrying water” for the super-rich. It’s so simple:

                1. I’m not an envious jackass with an inferiority complex

                2. I’ve emotionally matured past the age of 6 and know that the economy is not a zero-sum game where one person’s increase in wealth makes me poorer.

                3. I’m aware of the variety of economic reasons why tax and spend is not viable.

                1. I simply tell them that I, unlike them, know which side my bread is buttered on.

                  Wealth creation is the single required element of a vibrant economy. Anything that inhibits wealth creation, worsens the economy and therefore my quality of life.

                  I can’t make it any simpler for them than that, yet they insist their livelihoods will improve by cutting the throats of businessmen.

                  1. I’m far from rich, but I know that businessmen work for me. Ever try to make your own cell phone or computer? I built my own motorcycle but I didn’t have to make the parts (though I had to modify many), nuts, bolts or tools because a businessman made them for me, much cheaper than I possibly could have. Try building your own “Little House on the Prairie” without even a (businessman-provided) steel ax.

                2. Giving american socialist the benefit of the doubt, he/she might be objecting to the cronyism in our financial markets. Cronyism created, supported, and encouraged by our politicians, media, and academic elites.

                  Goldman Sachs was the largest Obama campaign donor in both ‘8 and ’12.

                  Unfortunately, he/she isn’t connecting that righteous anger at the 1% rent-seeking class with the means by which some of them get their payout. The means being the politicians willing to sell favors for money.

                  So, we get the vicious cycle of Argentina like stupidity, never understand that if politicians lacked the power to provide favors then rent-seeking in whatever form would be so very difficult.

                  1. I’m always amazed by the apparent inability of so many people to understand *why* there is so much money spent on lobbying and political campaigns.

            2. I have a disdain for people who try to take things that don’t belong to them.

              Also, if libertarianism is so appealing to the “1%”, why haven’t they used their billions to support the campaigns of libertarian candidates?

              1. They didn’t get rich by wasting their money. They give it to whoever has the power to help them the most.

        3. O’Reilly doesn’t pay taxes. A friend told me BO hasn’t paid anything in 10 years. A reliable, non partisan friend that would never make up things.

          1. Dude, he’s much too busy getting paid an 8 digit salary for a 43 minute broadcast to actually pay taxes. I love how he lumps in the money he gives to his pet charitable causes to calculate his total tax burden. Nice. You mean I can calculate the amount of money I give to the us military and give it instead to the American Socialist Fanclub Society. Sign me up for that!

            1. You want a system where you can refrain from being forced to give to a state-run military establishment but instead freely give it to an advocacy group (eg socialists) of your own personal choice. You want to sign up for that kind of thing? OK,it’s called libertarianism. You’ll find more about it via Google.

              1. I think that’s unwieldy, but the less money spent on people fightin’ fer my freedom the better.

            2. It’s not unfair to do so seeing how he’s an evil capitalist and as such, he’s free to keep everything he earns, er I mean, steals. Gotta have that left wing terminology correct.

        4. ‘m for taxing rich people, who do incredibly valuable things like sell securities on the computer with other computers

          This is hilarious. The richest people are all individuals who started or were involved in valuable companies that improved people’s lives. The fact that you’re such an idiot that you think rich people only ‘sell securities on the computer with other computers’ means you’re clearly too incompetent to be discussing economics.

          Not sure I should take much heed in your political ideas.

          1. Yeah, right. tell that to the people who lived around a union carbide plant in Bhopal or people who lived in Anniston, al who lived with a Monsanto plant in their neighborhood

            1. Yeah, right. tell that to the people who lived around a union carbide plant in Bhopal or people who lived in Anniston, al who lived with a Monsanto plant in their neighborhood

              I’m really confused as to what this has to do with your initial claim that rich people do nothing but trade securities. Isn’t the fact that these plants exist proof that you were wrong?

              I realize it must hurt to be so clearly idiotic, but you should really stick to your arguments instead of flying to a new one every time you’re proven wrong.

              It’s also nice that you use Bhopal as an example. You realize that India spent most of the post-war years being essentially socialist, right? What you saw is yet another major environmental disaster in a left-wing country, just like Chernobyl and the draining of the Aral Sea.

              1. I thought the two examples I pointed out we’re clear examples of corporations maximizing profit by maximizing pollution.

                Psst, it’s you flying into new arguments when you bring up Chernobyl. I’ve never looked to the Soviet Union for inspiration so the obvious question is why bring it up?

                But just so long as we are talking about catastrophic nuclear accidents have you libertarians heard of Fukashima and Three Mile Island?

                1. Hi Mary, how’ve you been? Up to your old tricks I see.

                  That one took less than 7 comments. Not what you used to be, are you?

                2. Fukushima: Caused by a massive natural disaster and has caused the death of zero human beings from the radiation released. Will likely never cause the death of anybody. But this example doesn’t even help your argument if it did cause radiation death and disease because TEPCO is almost an arm of the Japanese government.

                  TMI: Come on. An industrial accident that caused ZERO fatalities and will NEVER cause any cancer of deaths. It caused economic pain to the utility in ownership of TMI unit 2 but that’s it. To even put this in the same category as Chernobyl is laughable.

                  Outside of Chernobyl, which was completely controlled by a socialist government, nuclear power has caused ZERO deaths.

                  1. Smilin’: I thought that the Fuki workers were actually exposed to dangerous rad levels?

                    BTW it’s probably Mary. Get John here and watch her go wild.

                3. Neither Fukashima or TMI were/are catastrophic.

                  And those accidents/disasters didn’t make those companies any money.

                  Furthermore, no one is arguing that we should let corporations dump poison in the streets.

                  1. General Public Utilities Corporation definitely would have preferred TMI not happen, they lost a 1 year old reactor asset that they spent a lot of money building.

                    I wish more industrial accidents were as much a non-issue, health wise, as TMI.

                4. But just so long as we are talking about catastrophic nuclear accidents have you libertarians heard of Fukashima and Three Mile Island?

                  You mean two nuclear accidents that caused a grand total of zero deaths?

                5. Actually, Bhopal was at least partly due to Indian government interference in the hiring and building practices of Union Carbide.

              2. Preamble to the Indian Constitution:

                “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC …”

                Oh, and Union Carbide only owned 51% of Union Carbide India.

                The other owner: the socialist government of India, which licensed the project, sited the project, mandated that it be locally staffed, and insisted that it use domestically manufactured methylisocynate in the process.

            2. The suggestion that government control would make management more responsive to the harm they cause other people is laughable.

              Go ask the people who live around Chernobyl.

              Corporations are much more sensitive to the desires of the public than government. They’re getting feedback from their customers (and the people who reject them for someone else) every single day.

              Politicians only hear from us once every four years.

          2. Yeah, financing entrepreneurial activity is a completely useless exercise…

            Which is why it’s so necessary for the government to tax people so they can do it?

    4. That’s funny…a socialist calling libertarians crackpots.

      Literally LOLed.

      Have you murdered anyone today?

      1. Jon Stewart’s a socialist. But he’s one of those ‘you socialize your wealth first, then I’ll socialize mine’ socialists. Like pretty much all of them.

        1. My favorite are the ‘let’s raise taxes that I won’t be paying’ socialists. You know, the socialists who want a 90% top income tax while making most of their money from the capital gains.

          I also like the ‘I’m not in favor of gulags’ type of socialist who argues in favor of an economic system that can only end in gulags and is simply too dumb to see it.

    5. Do Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright mean anything to you? Let me guess: it’s not racism when a black man does it.

      And Obama personally thinks that the government can dictate how much you earn, own the means of production, control what you say, and kill American citizens without due process as long as they’re not physically in the country, although that last point is still up for debate.

      What is with the Left’s fascination with their own insanity?

    6. “You mean the guy who opposes the freedom to marry act, thinks the government should outlaw abortion…”

      I didn’t say Rand Paul was going to turn libertarians into Republicans.

      I suggested that he would draw the Republican Party into being more libertarian.

      And, incidentally, he wouldn’t be the first president to frown at abortion and go public in his opposition to gay marriage. Really, that’s all been done before.

      1. “I suggested that he would draw the Republican Party into being more libertarian.”

        The problem is that Republican voters are always more freedom-minded than the establishment. The real question is whether the latter becomes more libertarian. I kind of doubt it.

        1. If Rand Paul wins the nomination, he will be the establishment.

          Is there any question that the Democratic Party is more progressive now than it was when Obama was first elected?

          1. I guess it’s a chicken and egg thing. I could be wrong, but it seems more likely to me that a nominee is more reflective of the status quo than vice versa. But I am skeptical of the ability of one person to influence an institution. I think Obama is basically a tool.

            1. I am skeptical of the ability of one person to influence an institution. I think Obama is basically a tool.

              Yes, but a figurehead is influential, because people will take him to represent what his backers think the rest of them should be like. “Oh, he thinks this? Well, since I think I’m one of them, I should be like that too if I want to get somewhere.” Eventually even the grass roots, who have no aspiration to move up in esteem (but may be motivated by a desire to not move down in esteem, or are simply trying to reflect what they think is expected of them), start to reflect it too.

              The priests of a religion, if they don’t like what God says, get themselves another God. (You can be sure that if Jesus Christ manifested himself, the cardinals would dictate to him or shove him aside if he disagreed, rather than vice versa.) But the people in the pews for the most part just go along to get along, unless they have a desire to reidentify themselves with a different crowd.

          2. If by progressive you mean more likely to espouse libertarian legislation like ending the ban on homosexuals in the military, ending the us military commitment in Iraq, legalization efforts on the part of state-level Democrats regarding marijuana, and freedom to marry.

            1. ending the us military commitment in Iraq
              1) At the same timetable as Bush 2) Obama tried to keep use there

              legalization efforts on the part of state-level Democrats regarding marijuana

              Obama continues to wage the war on pot and CO governor Hickenlooper was against legalization.

            2. legalization efforts on the part of state-level Democrats regarding marijuana

              I live in Washington state.
              Not one elected Democrat endorsed legalization, the State Democrat party opposed legalization and all the left wing papers opposed legalization.

              You sir are a pile of lying shit.

              1. http://elections.firedoglake.c…..alization/

                As I said, I think most of the commentators here are flask or the RP– and you sir are just another one

                http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat…..#2646101=0

          3. While I appreciate the optimism here, I think the only way RP is going to win the nomination is by ‘moderating’ his positions until they are indistinguishable from Mitt Romney’s or John McCain’s or George Bush’s or Barack Obama’s.

            Of course, libertarians will still support him because they ‘know’ he’s only saying what needs to be said in order to get the nomination and that he doesn’t really believe the horseshit he’s going to have to spew to get the nomination.

            But if RP starts oratorically moderating his positions toward the Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP and saying things we all know he doesn’t believe just to win an election, how does this make him any different than any other shitweasel politician?

            I don’t have my hopes up very high for RP, regardless of whether or not he wins the nomination.

            (Note: ‘Rockefeller Republican’ is a term us old geezers use to distinguish the Establishment GOP like Bob Dole or Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe who support big government just as much as Teddy Kennedy ever did from the ‘Goldwater Republicans’ who seriously do believe in smaller government. I would point you to a more modern example of a Goldwater Republican but Barry might have been sui generis.)

            1. “But if RP starts oratorically moderating his positions toward the Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP and saying things we all know he doesn’t believe just to win an election, how does this make him any different than any other shitweasel politician?”

              Because what he really does will be different from every other shiteweasel politician.

              Rand Paul is a politician. And let’s never forget that politicians are shitweasels. All of them!

              Rand Paul is a double talking shitweasel.

              Ron Paul is a double talking shitweasel.

              They’re all shitweasels in terms of their doubletalking. That’s what it takes to achieve and maintain power. We’ve known that since Plato’s “noble lie” and Machiavelli–at least!

              It’s what politicians do that’s really important, though, right? Believe me, what I hate about Barack Obama isn’t the awful shit he says. It’s the awful shit he does.

              If Rand Paul said all the exact same things Barack Obama says–but actually did all libertarian stuff instead? He’d be the greatest president in the history of the United States of America.

              1. This isn’t about respect, you know.

                We shouldn’t respect politicians.

                Wanting to be elected so you can force people to do things your way is probably evidence of something more than just a moral deficiency. They’re probably all psychiatric cases.

                All of them!

                Don’t trust any of them. Not even the libertarians. People are always arguing about what makes someone a true libertarian–a libertarian as someone who doesn’t think politicians are the solution to our problems is probably about as good a definition as any.

            2. But if RP starts oratorically moderating his positions toward the Rockefeller Republican wing of the GOP and saying things we all know he doesn’t believe just to win an election, how does this make him any different than any other shitweasel politician?

              I debate myself at work about this often; is it immoral to lie to the opposition to achieve (relatively) less power in the hands of said opposition?

              Right now I’m on the “yes” side of that fence. I’m not opposed to the “ends justify the means” in this particular scenario; not 100% sure the ends don’t always justify the means when the end is Liberty.

      2. Maybe. But are you sure that you aren’t projecting your (in the personal and “royal” sense) frustrated hopes for a viable libertarian(-ish) candidate as so many progs and liberals want to believe Obama is a progressive crusader pretending to be just another indifferent cronyist?

        I don’t have to work too hard to find good things to say about Ron&Rand; but Rand’s flirtation with militant socons (the ones that, say, applaud Uganda’s death penalty for being gay) gives me pause to wonder how “small government” he really is.

        1. I look at Rand’s flirtation with social conservatives as being a function of two things.

          1) He’s a politician in Kentucky. Win or lose the nomination, he needs to stay in the game by getting reelected by conservative voters in Kentucky.

          2) It’s like Obama being against gay marriage. Obama’s public position on gay marriage was indistinguishable from that of the Southern Baptist Convention’s right up until about a year ago.

          …but everybody knew what his real position was anyway. Gay rights activists continued to work to get Obama elected–despite his public position on gay marriage–because they understood he was being pragmatic, and he wasn’t going to do them any good if he wasn’t in the White House.

          There are certain pragmatic things you have to do get elected in the Republican Party. The grass roots organizers and campaign contributors need you to pass certain litmus tests in order to get their support. If we don’t have a libertarian candidate that’s pragmatic enough to bend to that, then there’s never going to be a serious libertarian candidate.

          I feel like I understand Rand Paul well enough to trust where he really stands on personal freedom, but I’m also smart enough to see that he can only do so much good as a Senator from Kentucky, and in order to get into a position to do more, he’s gonna have to appeal to a broader coalition than just principled libertarians–for a while.

          1. True, but even his choice of Kentucky – being that he and Ron (who ended up in Texas)are from Pennsylvania he really has no deep tie to the region other than philosophic – makes me wonder which part of his stated outlook is the pragmatic part.

            I guess it comes down to how long people individually define “a while”.

            1. “A while” is until he gets the nomination, right?

              And even then, it’s a question of how long it remains useful to be pragmatic.

              Gay right activists had to wait for three and half years into Obama’s presidency before he distinguished himself from social conservatives on gay marriage, but who would say that gay rights activists aren’t better off now for having helped put Obama into the White House back then?

              These are politicians we’re talking about–even Rand Paul is a politician. They’re successful by trading in their principles to get broad support, get elected, and get things done.

              …even libertarian politicians work that way (in the strictest sense, “libertarian politician” is an oxymoron). The solutions to our problems aren’t going to come from government anyway–not even if it’s a government filled with libertarian politicians. It would just be nice to have an emperor for a while who isn’t as 100% completely awful as the other options–and even might make things better for a while.

              Rand Paul isn’t just better than the other options out there–like I said, from a pragmatic standpoint, if he just wins the nomination, he’ll be the best thing that’s ever happened to the libertarian movement.

              1. “…but who would say that gay rights activists aren’t better off now for having helped put Obama into the White House back then?”

                I wouldn’t. Things are better but Obama really doesn’t get all that much credit anyway. Okay, he got two moderately social liberal Justices in the fold, but most of the actions been happening in the courts or statehouses and what little he can do personally he still hasn’t really done.

                If Rand’s views on the scope of executive power and the role of the government in people’s private lives are true then his personal opinions don’t matter much.

                1. You don’t think Obama has been better for gay rights than McCain or Romney would have been?

                  If a President Rand Paul were half as good for libertarians as Obama was for gay rights, we’d be so freaking happy he was president six years from now, it wouldn’t even be funny.

                  1. LOL, yeah, “better” doesn’t always mean “good” – but that’s about the best endorsement I can give the The Grand Panjandrum. McCain may have been trouble – especially with DADT – but even trouble helps galvanize supporters. Romney wouldn’t have made much of a difference. He’s the white Obama, pretty much.

                    As far as I can see though, I can’t see any reason why the LGBT community should trust the government, so a prominent conservative sincerely adopting a “live and let live” philosophy and not wanting to make things worse would be preferable to hollow prog promises and tokenism. A nice change of pace, if nothing else.

            2. no deep tie to the region other than philosophic

              The south is philosphic?

              1. For want of a better word, firstly 🙂 And in the sense that the south is seen as being more conservative and traditional, yes.

              2. The south is philosphic?

                Is anywhere?

          2. Yes right… Make excuses for his authoritarianism on personal liberty.

            1. He isn’t an authoritarian.

              Calling Rand Paul an authoritarian is ridiculous.

              1. You realize you are arguing with Mary, right?

                1. Thanks for the heads up.

                  In my defense, I wasn’t arguing with her just now.

                  I was stating a fact.

                  Rand Paul isn’t an authoritarian, and it’s ridiculous to say he is.

                  1. Be advised Mary doesn’t deal in facts.

                    No worries. She’s been around for the past couple of days, throwing grenades.

                    1. She was the person yesterday who posted racist shit and then claimed to be a genius when we criticized her, wasn’t she?

                    2. 95% sure. Epi got it early. She had me for a good portion of it because Merican usually uses his main character and a sock or two. I assumed Griggs07 was the sock.

                2. You realize you are arguing with Mary, right?

                  Does she have any new videos?

                  Those are always good for hoot.

        2. Rand’s SoCon flirtation is nothing more than Rand cynically manipulating and using SoCons-nothing we shouldn’t praise frankly.

  12. That jsut looks like its gonna be good.
    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

  13. Here is the question for Rand Paul, considering Nick’s last two articles.

    Will Rand Paul start the ball rolling on getting marijuana declassified as a Schedule 1, and do it now because it is a process he can start as a member of Congress?

    And for Nick, are you going to hold Rand Paul to the same standard as you do the President? You haven’t yet.

    1. “And for Nick, are you going to hold Rand Paul to the same standard as you do the President? You haven’t yet.”

      This, coming from someone with Obama’s balls in his/her mouth.

  14. The old hag on the McLaughlin Group just said that poor Obama can’t get all of his jobs bills through Congress.
    Ofcourse no one called her on it.

    1. Separation of powers really pisses them. The left doesn’t even pretend to value democracy anymore, they would gladly turn this place into a dictatorship as long as their Enlightened Despot was in charge.

      And why on Earth do I get ads on here for Asian singles of all things?

      1. Sorry, they were meant for me.

      2. The left and rank and file Democrats aren’t even convinced of the need for honesty in their own politicians. If it’s my money, I’m long on Democrat politicians for the time being. They have one easy to please ‘client’, Democrats, and a media that can keep them competitive with independents.

        1. A bunch of them have to please voters, and they are looking as likely to support big D as they were in 2010.

      3. Because you don’t use Ad Blocker.

  15. Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin.

    I’ve been reading and following the Mises Institute for years since I discovered them in 2003, and I haven’t read a single piece from the contributors or fellows that combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings. I would really love to know exactly what the authors are alluding to rather than taking what seems to me, right now, like slander, at face value.

    1. It’s some scholars “affiliated” with the Mises Institute. Not in any formal sense necessarily, they could be affiliated in the sense that you are affiliated with the Mises Institute – you’ve looked at their website at least once.

    2. It’s far easier to say that than to actually read “Human Action” or “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, for example. Reading requires thinking.

    3. I was just about to write substantively the same comment(although I started my reading in earnest around 2008.) There are certainly heterodox opinions on mises.org, but for chrissakes they’re trying to undercut the statist orthodoxy…this should not be surprising to anyone. Sure, the have a significant number of Christers among them…but this atheist couldn’t give shit one. I’ll take a Hulsman or Tucker any day over the patsies at CATO.

  16. poor Obama can’t get all of his jobs bills through Congress.

    Jobs bills? Is he going to hire people, at Davis-Bacon wages, to pick up cans along the highway? Build a modern day fleet of Liberty Ships? Or maybe just drop all pretense and put millions to work erecting stone monuments to the Empathizer-in-Chief.

  17. What this country needs is more Progressive propaganda.

    Our textbook reports both sides of the argument in full, but we present the progressive argument as more persuasive. What is necessary is to stimulate the economy, change institutions to provide more equality — through more progressive taxation, a higher minimum wage and support for unions, for example — and also change institutions to provide more stability in the economy: by making major government investments in infrastructure, say, and generally providing greater job security.

    More concretely, we argue that some sectors of the economy are especially crucial to maintaining both economic equality and employment stability. These are sectors neglected by private enterprise or ones in which businesses make unnecessarily high profits that reduce equality without compensating benefits to the rest of us. The clearest example is health care, which provides no better care than other industrialized countries, but costs at least twice as much per person. What is needed is universal public health care at low cost, which will, for example, create more jobs in elder care like home nursing.

    1. That article is based on a complete lie. I took macroeconomics courses in college and a lot of them take Keynesian arguments for granted.

      What this person is arguing is that we should reject the current Keynesian establishment in macroeconomics and create a new establishment that is explicitly socialist.

    2. This socialist advocacy is sponsored by PBS. Not one dime to spare in the federal budget, I tells ya!

    3. but costs at least twice as much per person

      Medical care in Mexico is some of the cheapest in the world and of comparable quality to the US and Europe.

  18. A second area that demands extensive public investment to create jobs, as the March on Washington urged a half century ago, is higher education. Why not free education at public universities, paid for by higher taxes on the increasingly well-off? Education investment has the highest return to the public of any sector. If education is free to students and paid for by progressive taxation, it will shift income from rich corporations and individuals to people who will, eventually, have more skills to sell in the global economy, again increasing employment, spending and aggregate demand.

    College professors who want to steal from the rich, and keep it.

    THIS IS WHY WE NEED PBS.

    1. “Why not free education at public universities, paid for by higher taxes on the increasingly well-off?”

      This hurt my brain. Please stop posting this.

    2. Spartacus’ Law: If you depend on politicians for funding, your funding will be determined by politics.

      Eventually that will lead to a result you find horrific, no matter who you are.

  19. The GOP establishment knows they have a good chance of winning and they’re not going to waste it on someone who actually represents the people.

    1. +1 this.

      I think Paul would get more support from the GOP if they were on their heels, but any perceived weakness of the Dems and they will insist on keeping their GOP contingent centered on the Big Government Social-Conservative theme. They fear once they stop selling this spin, kulturwar ‘wont matter’ anymore and they will be toothless.

      Even though its more-or-less inevitable.

  20. The iNYTs article begins with a comprehensive list of all the different types of libertarian.

    The libertarian faithful ? antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks ? gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

    1. That’s some shockingly bad writing that the several dozen remaining NYT readers will have the privilege to read.

    2. All the truthers I ever met were left wingers.

      I think it had to do mostly with their Internet proficiency…ie to see that stupid youtube video of the “pentagon” damage.

      Why is there graffiti on the inside wall of the pentagon?

  21. Re: the Meet the Press clips. I would have liked to see a little better defense of Snowden from Paul and a little bigger condemnation of Rogers bullshit spying charge. He kind of punted on that.

    1. Rogers is a repub. He doesn’t want to rile up the establishment sucking-on-the-tit-of-the- military-industrial-complex wing of the party.

    2. He does punt a lot. But given how big the splits are withing the party, that may be the sanest strategy to be the candidate.

      I don’t really care what he has to say to get there. He’ll get to talk up the civil-libertarian position a ton in the general election (especially if the dems pick hillary, or any other warfare state democrat).

  22. “It loses its sense of proportion if you have to go through and defend every single person about whom someone says is associated with you.”

    I like to remind people who bring up the OMG a racist called himself libertarian! that Lyndon LaRouche calls himself a Democrat.

    1. So do Sandinistas call themselves democrats. Some even get elected to Mayor of NYC. But, hey, I hear all the fringe in on the right. On the left, its sound policy as far as the fields meet the horizon. The only difference is how fast you want to get there.

  23. I think the liberal media is far more afraid of Rand Paul than Chris Christie. Christie is another compassionate conservative who (like most cc’s) may have the wistfulness, but not the intention of reducing government. So even if somehow Christie were to win, he would end up being a Hillary-lite. Paul, however, scares them quite a bit because he could not only attract classic conservatives (alternative would be Hillary), but also many liberals who are afraid of overreaching government.

    1. yes. Which is why they treat Christie as the ‘conventional’ opponent, and joke about Paul as an oddity no one is supposed to take seriously.

  24. Mainstream GOP republicans will join forces with Progtard congresscritters to wage unrestrained KULTUR-WAR against Rand Paul over the next 2 years.

    Dems will paint him a ‘racist’ over his free-association comments, and ‘extremist’ for his ‘small government’ leanings… wanting your Grandma to DIE for not wanting to give everyone MOAR FREE STUFF endlessly, and perpetuating the War on Womens etc etc.

    …meanwhile the GOP will attack him as ‘soft on terror’ for opposing Drones or the NSA, and a ‘weirdo’ for his kooky ideas about Gays and Drugs and libertine ideas which will just pollute our childrens’ minds…

    Seriously = everyone will want him DEAD. He’s a spoiler for the entire mainstream political narrative, and TEAM BLUE and TEAM RED hate people who aren’t following the TEAM playbook. I see the characterizations of Paul as an ‘extremist’ being endlessly reiterated in social media as part of a talking-points campaign to isolate anyone not part of the conventional RED v. BLUE narrative. The goddamn political machines in America sense that their respective TEAMS are losing their generational relevance, and instead of realizing that their time is up, and their story is now played out, they will double-down in a desperate effort to destroy any rising stars who threaten to accelerate their demise. At best they will co-opt him and leave him a choice = play TEAM or be gone. Call me cynical, but there it is.

    1. You’re cynical. (just kidding)

      It will all come down to whether people are fed up enough with the Teams to abandon them and vote for a real alternative. The establishment can only do so much to block him if he has the support of the people. The tide is certainly turning against the parties, we will see if they still have the ass to keep Paul down.

  25. You mean double up, not down. If they double down, that means they will go no farther than that. “Double down” comes from blackjack, where you can double your bet, but only if you take only the next card, no more. Everyone used to say “double up” (if they used a preposition at all) rather than “double down” metaphorically until about the turn of the century. “Double down” makes no sense outside the blackjack context. However, the only person I still hear saying, correctly, “double up” is Jerry Hickey in his radio offers.

  26. I really want him to already announce his run. #StandWithRand 2016

  27. Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian. Smaller government is not consistent with his anti-abortion stance.
    Sorry guys, he’s just another pretender.

    1. You can be anti-abortion and still be in favor of not having the government pay for it (either through enforcing an anti-abortion law or doling out welfare checks via planned parenthood).

    2. He definitely isn’t a libertarian, although I wouldn’t single out abortion as the main issue.

      For example, I think I heard him say today that he wants more government spending on infrastructure. But that’s just one of many issues.

    3. Smaller government is not consistent with his anti-abortion stance.

      Are you claiming one needs to be pro-choice to be a libertarian?

    4. Question: Can the government of today be smaller both in scope and size while making abortion laws more restrictive?

      Answer: Yes.

      Your claim does not preclude Ron Paul from being a libertarian.

      1. Rand Pual as well =P

    5. “Smaller government” is not what defines one as a libertarian, though in our current climate it is a useful sign of libertarianism. Libertarianism is rooted in the non-aggression principle, the idea that one may not be the first to use force against another. For this reason, libertarians can hold different views on whether abortion should be legal, because the question generally depends on your belief as to when human life begins. If you believe that human life begins at birth, then any law limiting abortion is an initiation of force against the mother, and therefore a violation of libertarian principles. On the other hand, if you believe that human life begins at some point before birth, then abortion is an initiation of force against the unborn child, and it would be permissible to ban abortion after whatever time the fetus would be considered a human life.

  28. The libertarian faithful ? antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks ? gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

    If there’s one thing that defines the “libertarian faithful,” it’s JBS membership or being a 9/11 truther. I have yet to meet a truther who wasn’t a utopian loon, and I’ve never met anyone who has ever belonged to the JBS.

    But since it’s the NYT, we can at least be pleasantly surprised that they managed to get the tax- and war-protester bit right.

    1. I’ve interned at Cato and IJ, met probably hundreds if not thousands of libertarians in my life. I have never met a JBS member.

    2. Tax Protestor= “sovereign citizen” ranting about admiralty flags and stockpiling ANFO in NYTs-speak

    3. http://mises.org/daily/6648/We…..imes-Prize

      Rockwell responds.

  29. People are forgetting that Ron Paul came close to winning the IOWA primary getting over 20% of the vote, he came in second in NH and should of won a couple of states(Nevada) if it weren’t for the GOP trying as hard as it could to prevent that. He received a good amount of funding and put up a good fight. RAND is MUCH MORE liked and accepted by mainstream republicans, he does have a real shot at winning the primary.

    A lot of Ron Paul supporters got involved in local GOP and hold positions that will have an effect on the primaries so he won’t have as much opposition from mainstream GOP as his father did. He will also have the same donor base as his father. It won’t be easy but he has a chance to win the primary.

    As for him being libertarian, he IS NOT. But he is 100x better than Romney, Obama, Clinton, Christie etc. which is why I hope he wins even if I don’t agree with many of his positions on social issues. I am tired of libertarians shooting themselves in the foot by not supporting candidates who are not 100% libertarian. We will not get that any time soon if ever. The best we can hope for is someone who moves us in the direction of scaling back the size and power of government and I think Paul would accomplish that.

  30. Lew Rockwell just did a fine job of dismembering the NYT’s smear job. http://www.lewrockwell.com/201…..t-like-me/

    -jcr

  31. Rand Paul will mainstream political libertarian-leaning conservatism. He cannot mainstream philosophical libertarianism because he is a politician using the political process, and philosophical libertarianism is anti-political.

  32. Molly. I see what you mean… Russell`s st0rry is neat, I just got a top of the range Acura from having earned $5107 thiss month and just over $10k lass month. it’s by-far my favourite work Ive ever had. I actually started 5 months ago and practically straight away was bringing home over $85, per-hr. look here W? o? r? k? s? 7? 7? .? ?? ?? ??

  33. my Aunty Kylie just got a stunning black BMW X4 SUV by working part-time off of a laptop… find more information W? o? r? k? s? 7? 7? .? ?? ?? ??

  34. Not sure if this was posted yet.. Walter Block was the one who made the comment about slavery. Here is his response

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/201…..-venomous/

    I lost a lot of respect for Gillespie on this one.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.