Rand Paul

Is Rand Paul Becoming Less "Libertarian-ish?" Seems So, But He's Still the Most Interesting GOP Candidate for President. By a Long Shot.

|

The Daily Beast

A week-and-a-half ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., that what America needs is a good old-fashioned religious revival. Literally:

"We need a revival in the country. We need another Great Awakening with tent revivals of thousands of people saying reform or see what's going to happen if we don't reform."

You can watch video of the comments via the Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody here. Brody enthused that Paul's evangelicalizing was very much about stepping away from the views that had brought him this far:

The focus of the prayer breakfast was a chance for Sen. Paul to discuss his views on religious freedom, the church and U.S.-Israel relations, faith and public life, and the essential role the church plays in the U.S. government….

Rand Paul IS going to get a chunk of the evangelical vote. On the surface, he may not be the guy you might think would appeal to evangelicals but take a deeper look. He'll have a pretty good appeal to millennial evangelicals and his talk of spiritual revival resonates.

Plus, he's going through great lengths to show how pro-Israel he is despite some who might question him on that. And remember this: this is not some "crazy libertarian" who wants to distance himself from faith and government issues. He understands the connection and he's willing to talk about it in public.

More here.

Brody is doubtless correct that Paul, a graduate of Baptist college Baylor and never shy to talk about religion, can snare some "chunk of the evangelical vote." He's wrong, however, to suggest that such votes necessarily come at the expense of the "crazy libertarian" bloc, which is far more pronounced among millennials (roughly, voters between the ages fo 18 and 34) than old-style Religious Right politics. Millennials are the most secular cohort in America and they are driven less by fears of "a moral crisis" (Paul's term) than anger over governmental invasion of privacy, mismanagement of entitlement spending, prohibition of pot and gay marriage, and endless wars. Millennials aren't automatic libertarians by any stretch of the imagination, but both voting groups are highly skeptical of government's efficacy and centralized power. There's a lot of meaningful overlap between the two groups and evangelicals, too, especially when it comes to loosening the grip of the federal government over many areas of everyday life.

Like his father, former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Rand has never hid his religion under a bushel basket when courting libertarian voters because he doesn't have to. Arguably alone among large swaths of the American electorate, even atheist libertarians tend to respect the ways in which religious organizations and communities fill vital roles in civil society. Indeed, even as outspoken an atheist and libertarian as Penn Jillette is quite open to the ways religious groups benefit society.

And yet there is also no question that the ways in which Republicans tend to placate the Religious Right and social conservatives generally that alienates not just libertarians who might otherwise vote for them but also many centrist or independent voters. Talking about moral crises during times of record-low crime and teen pregnancies and swearing uncritical fealty to Israel is no way to court non-traditional GOP voters, that's for sure. Failing to directly address and answer runaway government spending or, worse, calling for cuts to food stamps while pushing for massive increases in defense spending is a good way to alienate lots of voters who are sick of big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans.

For the most part, Paul has been far, far better in pushing a small-government, libertarian-ish agenda than any of the other likely GOP presidential candidates. He has called for getting the federal government out of pot prohibition and marriage (though he's getting wobbly on the latter). He's published budgets that call for year-over-year spending cuts and he hasn't put forward a terrible tax plan that blows open the budget again to give bigger child tax credits to all Americans regardless of income while also limiting the deduction for the poorest parents (that's Marco Rubio). He has staked out a general foreign policy direction that is non-interventionist in principle, even if he's getting more and more enamored of making exceptions to the rule. He fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy, drones, and government surveillance. Unlike Ted Cruz, he doesn't come across as a political panderer who seems less interested in winning meaningul political battles than in engaging in vestigial displays of rigid principle. Paul is actually trying to reach out to new audiences for himself and the GOP more broadly.

Which isn't to say that he's not sending mixed signals to libertarians. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, Paul may be calling for offsets to pay for vastly increased and unncessary military spending, but the fact that he's calling for it at all is problematic to me and to many libertarians. And as I told the Washington Post for a story that ran yesterday:

"To the extent he sounds more like every conservative Republican, he sounds less interesting to libertarians. I don't see what he picks up by being a version of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio," two other freshman senators who are in the mix for the Republican nomination for 2016.

As Paul gets ready to officially announce his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination this week, how far he strays from the generally libertarian thrust of his general political identity will bear close watching. Small "L" libertarians comprise somewhere between 13 percent and 25 percent of the electorate, depending on various conditions and definitions. Evangelicals are about 25 percent of the vote, according to various estimates,  but represent a static or sharing shrinking share of the electorate. The Republican brand is sinking fast among millennials and there's simply no way a traditional social-con, big-defense politician is going to recapture younger voters now or in the future.

Dispositional libertarians are almost certainly looking for a major-party candidate whom they can get behind in a general election. Since winning his Senate race in 2010, Rand Paul looked like he was that candidate. To the extent that he separates himself from the other Republicans in the primaries by asserting libertarian bona fides and explaining how reducing the size, scope, and spending of government will benefit most if not all of the traditional Republican interest groups, he still may be.

RELATED: Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul in Presidential Vids—Do you want a "blessing" or a "different kind of Republican"?

Last summer, Rand Paul told Reason TV the Republicans can only win if "they become more live and let live":

NEXT: Will an apology be forthcoming from U. Va. president Teresa Sullivan?

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. Vomit. Why, oh why, can’t we have candidates that embrace secularism? WTF, rand… C~

    1. Maybe Rand is not a secularist? Beyond that, he is certainly not rejecting secularism.

      1. Anytime a major political figure says the people of america need religion they are rejecting secularism.

        1. Depends. As long as he is rejecting government promoting or worse mandating religion, he is still embracing secular government and that is what counts. He could be an open atheist and it wouldn’t bother me as long as he understood government has no legitimate power to restrict people’s religious freedom. In the same way, he could be a holly roller and I would be fine, as long as he doesn’t see government as a weapon in the crusade.

        2. Not loving is hating!

        3. It’s one thing to comment on one’s belief that people need religion, another to have the gov’t mandate it. Paul may believe it, but the question is, will he use gov’t to mandate it? I can see Cruz, Hukabee, et al., thinking gov’t has a role to mandate religion. I worry less about that than his sliding on issues.

        4. I think everyone would be better off being in proficient in algebra and taking a basic accounting course. Not everyone will agree with that. Either way, I wouldn’t make it mandatory even if that were within my power. I see Rand’s comments about people needing religion in a similar light. I’ve never heard anything gout of the man that leads me to think otherwise.

          From past experience I know a number of Reason readers are very anti religion. Even so, I think Rand is still your guy.

        5. “Secularism”, by which I assume you actually mean the moral superiority of liberty, is not opposed to religions that likewise value liberty. Certainly the religious beliefs of many of the US founders fall in that category.

          I read Rand Paul’s call for a Great Awakening to be such a moral awakening.

      2. He does just that by denying that separation of church and state is the stated intention of the Establishment Clause.

        1. I suppose the Free Exercise Clause isn’t real?

          He never said we need re-education camps, dumbfuck. He said we need revivals…where people voluntarily show up and voluntarily decide to accept or not accept the gospel.

          Kinda the opposite of what the left wants, which is little more than forced acceptance and acquiescence to their belief structure.

          1. “The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government,” he told a group of pastors at a private breakfast on Capitol Hill on March 26.

            He has become just another religious whackjob – enabling religious power in our governments.

            1. Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern? Is Judeo-Christian morality not a big part of the basis for western culture and law?

              Could he not be directly referring to the overriding standards of right and wrong? Like, forgiving people the way the bible says we should when they commit minor drug offenses. Or would you prefer those people rot in jail like Obama has been ok with until very recently? Not very Christian, is it?

              1. Should people be barred from interjecting their religious beliefs into how they govern?

                Yes. All christfags should fucking hang.

                1. Yes. All christfags should fucking hang.

                  Behead those who say that Islam is violent!

              2. Judeo-Christian morality is certainly NOT a basis for our law or Constitution. And we pro-science secularists certainly have the right to reject Christo-fascism. We failed in 2000 and it got us the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, Faith Based spending, and the Dept of Homeland Security.

                1. Judeo-Christian morality is certainly NOT a basis for our law or Constitution.

                  You need a time machine so you can go back and tell Adams and Washington that. It would surprise them. Hell, the Constitution goes so far as to recognize the Sabbath:

                  “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it.” (U.S Constitution, Art. I, Section 7, Paragraph 2)

                2. Pro-science secularists? They have those?

            2. He has become just another religious whackjob – enabling religious power in our governments.

              Hi WeigelPenis!

              1. Is that pronounced “wiggle”?

                tee hee hee

            3. “The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn’t say keep religion out of government,” he told a group of pastors at a private breakfast on Capitol Hill on March 26.

              Um…perhaps he believes that, because that’s what 1A actually says, you fucking moron. Have you ever actually read 1A, Shitstopper?

              Here, give it a shot:

              Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            4. No, he hasn’t. You’re just venomous towards anyone who rejects your one true God. The State.

        2. BUUUUUUTTTTPPLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUGG

          1. Not one of Opie & Anthony’s best bits, but still pretty hilarious. 🙂

    2. What do you mean by “secularism”? Do you mean the “muscular” kind pined for by the Council on Secular Humanism (former CODESH) & practiced by France & sometimes Turkey? That is, where gov’t goes out of its way to make sure they can’t be seen as endorsing religion by any interpret’n of endorsement, such as by allowing people to wear religious garb on gov’t property? Or disestablishes religious holidays as official, moving them to some other day? Or disqualifies gov’t officials if they mention religions or make religious statements?

      Or do you just mean “candidates who have no discernible religion”?

    3. Embracing secularism means also distancing oneself from religion and religious freedom. I’d rather a candidate support freedom, than one religion or another, including the religion of secularism.

  2. “Why, oh why, can’t we have candidates that embrace secularism?”

    Because candidates who want to win elections try to avoid alienating large numbers of people who vote.

  3. Notice on the “revival” comments he made, he believes people should come to God willingly? The opposite of what the hardcore SoCons say and what the Proggies on the left say about their beliefs. They all want people forced to follow their dogma.

    As for his support of Israel: perhaps he values our relationship with the only sane democracy in the region and knows its demise will all but cause a nuclear war, plunging the entire world into chaos.

    As for military spending increases: let’s not assume his motives. He’s spoken in the past about bringing many of our soldiers home and closing overseas bases. Perhaps this is an extension of those proposals, as I’ve never heard him backtrack on them. Maybe he realizes its expensive to bring people back, close bases and build new/expand old facilities here.

    Or, you know, we could get all butthurt and nitpick the candidate most aligned with libertarianism by a wide margin. Based on history, I’m expecting this outcome.

  4. Notice on the “revival” comments he made, he believes people should come to God willingly? The opposite of what the hardcore SoCons say and what the Proggies on the left say about their beliefs. They all want people forced to follow their dogma.

    As for his support of Israel: perhaps he values our relationship with the only sane democracy in the region and knows its demise will all but cause a nuclear war, plunging the entire world into chaos.

    As for military spending increases: let’s not assume his motives. He’s spoken in the past about bringing many of our soldiers home and closing overseas bases. Perhaps this is an extension of those proposals, as I’ve never heard him backtrack on them. Maybe he realizes its expensive to bring people back, close bases and build new/expand old facilities here.

    Or, you know, we could get all butthurt and nitpick the candidate most aligned with libertarianism by a wide margin. Based on history, I’m expecting this outcome.

    1. I agree Sloopy. Maybe he thinks we are better off being allied with a democracy rather than theocratic dictatorship. And maybe he would like to bring the military home and spend the money to update and improve it. Just because you want a strong military doesn’t mean you support using it all of the time.

      1. The US is allied with at least one theocratic dictatorship.

  5. He is not the “most interesting” whatever that means. He is by far the best candidate in the GOP field. I think Cruz and Walker would both make decent Presidents and be massively better than Obama or Hillary. Paul would be better. Paul, by being much more forthright and forceful about issues like government spying and the horrors of the federal justice system would go a very long ways as President not only to fix those issues but to pull both parties in that direction. A Republican President who actually gave a shit about civil liberties and abuse of government police power would be torture for both the cop loving Republicans and the various Democrats who seem to only think abuse of government power is a problem with it isn’t their side doing it. That would be a very good thing.

    1. Who is more interesting then? On the right, I’d argue for Donald Trump or Ben Carson, but mostly because they’re interesting in that they’re idiotic and/or insane.

      On the left, Hillary is interesting as a candidate because she’s all but admitted to committing a series of felonies while giving the middle finger to the media, the Congressional oversight committees tasked to ensure her work is in accordance with our laws and the American public in general. Interesting because she’s a megalomaniac that’s a crook.

      Unfortunately, Gary Johnson is not interesting. But Non-interventionism rarely is.

      1. I do have a sort of ghoulish interest in seeing what else Hillary can get away with and how far the media will go to protect her, but ghoulish interest isn’t a reason for someone to be president.

        1. I have an interest in Hillary the same way Ramsay Bolton had an interest in Theon Greyjoy.

          Except, you know, her lady part stopped working on their own a long time ago.

          1. You want Hilary Clinton to perform body servant duties for you?

            Whatever floats your boat, I guess, but…

            1. I was thinking she needed to be flayed. But you’ve turned my stomach to the point that I want to retract my statement.

        2. I think it will be interesting to see that if she does begin to separate herself from this current administration and criticize it on various issues, how the media will cover that.

          1. how the media will cover that.

            They know the score. Cloumbia School of Journalism made sure of that.

            1. “how the media will cover that.”

              They will observe what happened to Senator Menendez and act accordingly.

        3. I do too. I can’t help but have a morbid curiosity about just how corrupt and incompetent a Hillary administration would be. She would like Obama be totally immune from press scrutiny. She has already made her time as Secretary of State a fund raising operation for her “foundation” and committed systematic and blatant obstruction of justice to cover it up. If she were elected President even after doing that, how far would she go? I honestly can’t imagine. Who knows. You can’t help but have as you put it a “ghoulish” curiosity about just how bad it would get.

          1. Yeah, but she is guaranteed to beat any Republican. Hillary will offer cash in hand and promises to keep the money flowing to all the groups that matter. Millennials will get their student loans forgiven. So what if she embodies the corrupt Clinton Machine?

        4. ghoulish interest isn’t a reason for someone to be president.

          There are worse things. Good intentions, for example.

      2. Ken, you should try and watch Miracle Hands sometime. While Ben Carson’s politics may be idiotic and insane, the man is a genius, without doubt.

        1. A skilled surgeon, without a doubt. Only a fool would doubt that. I’d love for a man with his talents to operate on Baby Reason when the time comes this summer (which we’re dreading).

          But his politics are off the rails.

          1. He would be great in a health care related position in a Paul administration.

            DHHS

            DHS

      3. I wasn’t clear. I don’t mean he isn’t the most interesting. I mean the fact that he is is not what is important. What is important is that he is the best. I should have said “Not only he is the most interesting but more importantly he is the best.”

        My sloppy language.

        1. My sloppy language.

          Don’t let it happen again!

    2. I haven’t seen a proposed budget from Cruz, and his hawkish stance doesn’t bode well for the budget. Cruz also doesn’t appear to oppose the NSA spying on us, or the police state in general.

      At least Walker has a record of keeping spending flat and being a fighter against the government unions. But Walker to be a big supporter of military intervention and against ISIS, which doesn’t bode well for the budget or our safety. Every time we get involved in civil wars in the Middle East, we end up supporting a corrupt and oppressive government, and make enemies of the other side. Then when we leave, we make enemies from the side we supported, by leaving them. And the civil war re-erupts leaving things worse, in spite of the US lives and treasure lost for the military meddling.

  6. Honestly, I don’t think Dr. Paul is becoming less libertarian so much as the position he’s long staked out, that he’s not libertarian so much as libertarian-leaning is becoming more noticeable as the election approaches. That still makes him one of the more libertarian politicians in American politics today. And certainly the most libertarian with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidency in a few decades.

  7. Abortion.

    SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT.

    1. You had one this weekend? I didn’t even know you had been raped.

      1. Fist has one a week whether he needs it or not. You probably don’t, you white cishetero-privileged shitlord.

        1. That’s a lot of flights of stairs.

          1. +1 or several coat-hangers.

            1. Couldn’t he use the same one over and over again? Like Mister Rogers, but with dead fetuses instead of sportcoats.

              1. No. You taxpayers are funding them, so I get a new one every damn time, suckers.

                1. Coat hangers tend to melt in the autoclave,

        2. I’m pretty sure your getting enemas and abortions confused.

          1. “The doctor said I wouldn’t have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there.”

      2. Turns out, I had. Fucking Indiana and their confusing laws.

    2. Since we’re going down this road.

      DEEP DISH IS NOT PIZZA.

      1. +1 Foreskin

      2. +1 Artisanal pus, errrr, mayo.

      3. But it sure is yummy.

    3. Cake Baking!!!!

  8. Always have to laugh at suggestions that there is some type of accommodation that can be made between the Christian Right and Libertarians. The last sentence says it all:

    “Last summer, Rand Paul told Reason TV the Republicans can only win if “they become more live and let live”:

    Because that is exactly what the Christian Right believes…live and let live.

    Right.

    1. Who was more “live and let live” in L’affaire Memories Pizza? If you can answer that honestly you don’t need to bother yourself with anxieties about the Christian Right trying to run your life.

      1. I’m much more concerned with movements such as Dominionism, part of the Christian Right, than I ever will be if a business doesn’t get to pick and choose what sexual orientation they want to do with business.

    2. The Christian Right is certainly more live-and-let-live than the cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      1. You are incredibly stupid then. The Christo-fascists have been gradually losing influence since the Puritan days but they still hate liberty with a passion.

        1. Dynamite drop-in Monty.

        2. BUUUUUTTTTPPPPPLLLLLUUUUUUUUGG

        3. You’re presumably willing to send armed men to extract money from a septuagenarian woman, under threat of death or imprisonment, for the crime of refusing to provide floral arrangements. But, yes, tell us all about these other fascists.

          (Also, you must know the Puritans are your moral ancestors. Moldbug could tell you, or even Jonathan Franzen: http://www.newyorker.com/magaz…..on-capture)

        4. No. YOU hate liberty. If I had a gun to my head and head tochoose to live under SoCon rule or you turds, I would pick them in a nanosecond.

      2. My issue was whether or not there was an accommodation between the Christian Right and the live and let live philosophy of libertarians. And there isn’t.

        I KNOW there isn’t an accommodation between the acceptance of science and live and let live libertarians…well, at least the so-called libertarians who comment here.

        1. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

          1. Which word?

            1. science

              1. I know exactly what it means:

                “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

            2. A consensus among scientists is not science, no matter how hard you want it to be.

              Get back to me when you’ve got an actual application of the scientific method with regards to climate change. Until then all you’ve got is consensus, which is not science.

              1. Note above that science is part of both observation and experimentation. Both have been used in the theory of AGW. Both. And to by far and away most SCIENTISTS (and all SCIENCE organizations), AGW has been proven and is a problem.

                It was in fact the scientific method that proved AGW to the large majority of scientists (surely you don’t believe National Academy of Sciences doesn’t understand what the scientific method is).

                But you are right…science isn’t consensus. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t one…and clearly there is. You just don’t like what the consensus of science says.

                1. (surely you don’t believe National Academy of Sciences doesn’t understand what the scientific method is)

                  I believe they understand which side their bread is buttered on.

                  And that’s the part about this that I find to be most interesting. Heretics and blasphemers who dare to question the consensus are immediately attacked based upon the source of the funding. It must be funded by teh evul corepourrayshuns, and therefore it cannot be trusted because all they care about is icky profits. Yet when you apply that same logic to the AGW folks, as in funding comes from people in government who cannot be trusted because all they care about is power, the AGW folks cover their ears and sing a song.

                  1. Well, I for one could not care less about the funding. I have said here that the whole Willie Soon brouhaha is ridiculous. The man’s work will fall or stand on its own merits, has nothing to do with funding. In fact, funding didn’t dissuade Richard Mueller from stating what the science was telling him. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t believe NAS is providing answers based on funding and you do.

                    1. I don’t believe

                      just another fundie

                    2. Where we differ, however, is that I don’t believe NAS is providing answers based on funding and you do.

                      Well the incentives are certainly there. They’re not being paid to find out what is causing the climate to change, they are being paid specifically to find human causes. That’s not scientifically honest because they are assuming both their premise and conclusion to be true. That’s what’s called Begging the Question.

                      Now if it is obvious that science funded by corporate interests may seek certain answers because they are profitable and give them more money, why isn’t it equally obvious that government interests may seek certain answers because they justify legislation that gives them more power?

                    3. I already said I don’t believe science will get swayed by corporate interests. Its you who believes that money is the root of all evil, not I.

                    4. Its you who believes that money is the root of all evil, not I.

                      Um, no. I didn’t say that. I said that people respond to incentives. If you deny that people respond to incentives then you’re stupid or obtuse.

                    5. They do indeed, but over 90% of climate scientists aren’t doing that. If you believe that, well then….

                    6. Governments have a practical monopoly on the funding for climate “science.”

                      That alone should say something.

                    7. It is the root of some evil though.

                2. Show me the data that points to the proven theory of AGW. I want to see the the actual experiments that have proved the theory. If the scientific method has proven AGW then there must been a number of repeatable experiments that have proven the theory.

                  And again, consensus of science is not science. At one time the consensus was….

                  The Earth is flat
                  The sun revolves around the Earth
                  Bacteria didn’t exist (No need for doctors to wash their hands before surgery)
                  And any number of other scientific facts that have been proven false.

                  1. And any number of other scientific facts that have been proven false.

                    At one point the scientific consensus was that molecules were held together by little hooks on the atoms. Seriously. And we certainly can’t forget eugenics which was quite the popular consensus until some Austrian-German guy took it to its logical conclusion.

                  2. I want to see the the actual experiments that have proved the theory.

                    While I take the side that AGW is poorly understood, the measurements are inconsistent and disputed, and that the models have failed spectacularly, experimental science is not the only science. There is also observational science, which has done pretty well with cosmology and paleontology.

                    A theory cannot be proved, only disproved. See: Popper. Karl, not John.

                  3. If you wish to be accurate in that comparison, the correct way to state it would have been this:

                    At one time, there was no correlation (according to science) between man-made CO2 and the earth warming. It was barely accepted except in the minority. But as the science around it became more robust, many of those skeptical scientists became convinced.

                    Yes, there are flat earthers today, who are clinging to their old beliefs, and its not the 93% of scientists who are warning you about the dangers of AGW.

                    As I said above, science is never conducted by consensus. It doesn’t mean there isn’t one. In fact, Reason loves the consensus of science on GMO’s.

                    “In sharp contrast to public skepticism about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe.”

                    http://geneticliteracyproject……l-warming/

                    1. At one time, there was no correlation (according to science) between man-made CO2 and the earth warming. It was barely accepted except in the minority. But as the science around it became more robust, many of those skeptical scientists became convinced.

                      Yes, there are flat earthers today, who are clinging to their old beliefs, and its not the 93% of scientists who are warning you about the dangers of AGW.

                      Bullshit, followed by bullshit “statistic.” Joe, you are an ignorant sack of shit. Or thoroughly dishonest. Your choice.

                    2. Prior to the 1990s, exactly how many science organizations were warning you about AGW? Try none. And today? All of them.

                      Keep trying.

                    3. Prior to the 1990s, exactly how many science organizations were warning you about AGW?

                      They were warning us about cooling. Oops.

                      Seriously, stay away from talking about science. Of all the areas where you’re ignorant, this is probably the top one.

                    4. Not one science organization issued a statement on global cooling, like many have on AGW. Not one.

                    5. Not one science organization issued a statement on global cooling, like many have on AGW. Not one.

                      Bullshit. Yet again.

                    6. Google “NASA,” Joey. They were once a science organization.

                    7. Consensus is not science.

                      Besides, when the funding is coming from government officials with an interest in the results promoting excuses for policies they’ve been itching to implement for decades, it’s no surprise that the research yields the desired results. If it didn’t yield the desired results, then the funding would get pulled.

                      Keep trying.

                    8. Jesus tap dancing Christ Joe. All you have left is AGW. After Obama made you a liar about every other issue, this is all you have left. You won’t talk about civil liberties or abuse of government power or foreign wars. You have nothing to say about those subjects anymore, not that your inane and mendacious opinions are missed. Nope, none of that matters now. It is all about preaching the AGW gospel. I guess you figured out illegal wars and government spying were just great as long as Obama is doing it.

                    9. I didn’t bring it up here, sarcasmic did. But reading has always been a weak spot for you.

            3. Which word?

              Nearly all of them?

  9. Rand is a politician? Who’d of thunk it?

  10. Team Red has had plenty of presidential aspirants over the years who were Socons that paid lip service to ideas of limited government and individual freedom. Now we finally have a libertarianish candidate with a legitimate shot at the White House paying lip service to the Socons.

    1. But he has become a NeoCon lite and now doesn’t support drug legalization now – the two LPish things a president has the most impact on.

      So he is like a Barry Bonds who cannot hit anymore. What good is he?

      1. BUUUUUUUUUTTPPLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGG

      2. “But he has become a NeoCon lite and now doesn’t support drug legalization now – the two LPish things a president has the most impact on.”

        I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the drug thing. As long as he’s sticking with his “let the states decide” position and not calling for a federal clampdown on the weed-legal states, I’m not gonna raise a fuss.

        The defense spending thing, however… if he’s gonna couple that with welfare reduction, he’s dead in the water. The MSM will eat him alive over that.

      3. So he is like a Barry Bonds who cannot hit anymore.

        “This 8-time Gold Glover can’t hit! What good is he?”

      4. Phrenology used to be a thing too.

        1. Oops. Meant that as a response to another comment above. My iPad is fucking with me again

  11. Talk of a religious revival doesn’t really bother me. I’d like to see more people in church myself. If more Christians took a more active role in community support and charity, instead of clamoring for government to redistribute wealth, then we’d be in a better place as a country. It doesn’t have to be Christians doing that, and it doesn’t have to come from a religious motivation, but so what if it does?

    The problem will be if Rand starts letting his religious convictions influence his policy preferences in inappropriate ways. I don’t think he has done that yet. The rhetoric might turn some people off, but he can believe what he wants to believe, so long as he doesn’t try to pass laws to force those views on others.

  12. As if on cue, I just got an email from Rand2016 asking me to sign a right to life petition. Gillespie, are you in cahoots?

    1. Isn’t the right to life in accordance with the NAP?

      1. Yes yes, I’m a pro-life libertarian. The timing was just uncanny.

  13. Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason, agreed: “To the extent he sounds more like every conservative Republican, he sounds less interesting to libertarians. I don’t see what he picks up by being a version of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio,” two other freshman senators who are in the mix for the Republican nomination for 2016.

    Then again, Gillespie added, “he’s not a doctrinaire libertarian. He’s libertarian-ish. He’s not his father.”

    Nick is correct. He can’t win being just another SoCon.

    1. BBBUUUUUUUUUUTTTTPPPPPLLLLLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGG

  14. The Mike Hihn signal has been lit. Expect this thread to be corpse fucked.

    As much as people like PB and Jackass Ace hate Rand, this leads me to think he must be the superior candidate. They are terrified of him. As they should be. He will start to push the Reps to a more liberty viewpoint and start stealing the fiscally conservative Dems.

    1. I hate that Rand has become a SoCon. Or always has been one depending on your perspective.

      Religion poisons your worldview. The worst of all is Islam with Christianity second.

      I believe in free markets AND free minds. Many here do not.

      1. You believe in free minds, just not free minds that freely choose belief systems with which you disagree. Got it.

        1. You’re free to believe anything you wish. And I have the duty to disparage ridiculous anti-liberty belief systems in an Open Society.

          In open societies, the government is purported to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible. Advocates claim that it is opposed to authoritarianism.

          Wikipedia

          1. In open societies, the government is purported to be responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible.

            And this is supposed to be Libertarian? No defense of Rights, or mention of Liberty, simply a promise of what you may as well call “smart government”, an oxymoron? Should government be limited in anyway in your shit society? Only by what is claimed to be “efficient”? You claim to support the Free Market. What you describe above is under no obligation to stay out of it. As long as their runaway inflation is “responsive” they could set price and wage controls?

            Did you really mean to out yourself in such an obvious fashion? It isn’t like anyone here has ever believed your “classic liberal” bullshit but, basically socialist talking points?

            Would your “open society” tolerate Religion? No one would believe in religion because one of the first things your society would do is kill all the religious people, because religion is dangerous and “secularism” is Utopia?

            It is terrifying when one thinks how many people believe as you do. You are truly a piece of shit.

      2. I think you believe 8% of what you say.

      3. I believe Rand has always been a social conservative, but unlike others with that label, he’s not choosing to go full nannystatetard with his beliefs. He’s got a fighting chance if he can remain balanced like that.

    2. To be accurate, I don’t hate Rand. In fact, I came here originally in the last election because Gary Johnson interested me. And some of the things that Rand supposedly stands for, I agree with…reduction of the military budget, end to foreign interventions, pot legalization. and more.

      But here is the problem…I think he being proven to be a phony on many of these things, unlike Johnson. Don’t believe me? Its exactly what Nick is alluding to in the above article.

  15. Fuck that nigga.

    1. Best comment of the day.

      You, sir, win the entire internet.

    2. Racist, Racist, RACIST

      Never mind that you’re barely out of your teens and just lost a huge game and ruined an almost perfect season and your emotions are at an all time high.

      Never mind that every rap song says nigger about a hundred million times

      Never mind that young black men say nigger to each other in the same way white guys say dude or man.

      Never mind anything, I’M FREAKING THE FUCK OUT AND DON’T KNOW WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      (I’m a massive UK fan and I said a lot worse thing about the whole damn Wisconsin team and the state of Wisconsin. FUCK YOU WISCONSIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

  16. As to the question of whether an accommodation between libertarians and christian conservatives is possible, I’d say it likely is possible, but the christian conservatives just aren’t there yet. Fundamentally (pardon the unintended pun) there’s nothing in the belief system of most christian conservatives, as far as I can tell, that inherently rejects the libertarian argument. When you argue with them, they rarely reject libertarian first principles. Their argument comes down to a “well, yeah, but….”. As it becomes increasingly clear that they’ve lost the culture war, I suspect more and more of them will discover the value in fencing off increasing portions of private life from political decision-making.

    1. Their argument comes down to a “well, yeah, but FAMILYYYZZZ!!!1”.

      FIFY

    2. Anyone with any sense should already rarely politicize anything. I’m not saying Christian conservatives don’t have sense, I’m making a general statement.

  17. I don’t see any substantial way that Rand Paul’s views have changed. Like any politician, he emphasizes different parts of his views depending on who he’s talking to, then allows people to form conclusions based upon their perceptions. Rand is a religious, Evangelical Christian. He’s also libertarian. Though these may not often go together, contrary to popular belief they aren’t completely incompatible. In fact, proper understanding of the Bible (which most Evangelicals, the Pauls excluded, don’t have) can easily lead a Christian to believe he or she can’t be anything but libertarian.

    It’s perfectly possible to be religious without being a theocrat; indeed, most religious people aren’t. Only prejudice of Ayn Rand-following, objectivist libertarians leads them to believe it’s not possible, and this is in turn due to near total absence of religious instruction in homes of most Millenials, which has made Christianity almost as alien to them as Islam or Hinduism and caused them to think televangelists and guys like Rick Santorum represent authentic Christianity. The fact is a person can have serious moral concern about a particular trend in society without automatically concluding the solution must be to have government assert greater intrusive influence over people’s lives. Considering how immoral government is to begin with, most Christians don’t feel comfortable promoting their values through it anyway.

    1. Well said.

    2. Plenty of millenials got religious instruction at home. Many people reject Christianity after learning more about it.

      “proper understanding of the Bible”- which of course, is YOUR understanding!

      My no-true-Scotsman detector just beeped.

  18. An attitude of moral apathy and social permissiveness is not a prerequisite for being a libertarian: one only needs to believe that religious organizations do not have the right to use the force of government to compel others to follow their teachings against their will, while simultaneously supporting freedom of religion, both to practice (or not) and to affiliate with a particular church or other organization (or not). Persuasion and the lawful, peaceful exercise of freedom of speech, as well as leading by example, ought to be the modus operandi of religions?not forced conversion, which neither helps nor saves anyone. Some religious organizations and individuals (including many atheists) fail to understand this principle, but others do.

    In any case, being a moral relativist who thinks that right and wrong are subject to personal interpretation is not conducive to the establishment of a libertarian society. There has to be personal accountability, self-restraint, and a commonly understood and accepted moral code that people voluntarily choose to follow to prevent libertarianism from descending into destructive, chaotic anarchism. Religion, when divorced from government, provides this foundation, and much more. A libertarian leader should therefore not be criticized for being religious, or for promoting religious values outside of a political and legal framework. You may not agree with him, but as a libertarian, you certainly ought to respect his beliefs and position.

    1. objective morality is an impossibility

      1. Objective morality is an impossibility if you do not believe in God (then again… in rights or entitlements you believe you have become a figment of imagination… subject to be given and taken away at a whim by the mob). If you do believe in God… then objective morality is a certainty. If you don’t respect the latter, then you create a chasm between believers and non-believers. Objective morality, means objective law, means absolute and inalienable human rights, which means a foundation of stone. Why give fallible men the power to give and take away?

        1. So what is OBJECTIVism? Chopped liver?

    2. A commonly understood and accepted moral code? Try the Libertarian Party Platform:

      https://www.lp.org/platform

      Gods did not invent morality.

  19. Yes, Rand is head and shoulders above every other serious candidate – which amounts to saying next to nothing. There is no way on earth anyone can seriously say they believe in liberty if they don’t believe in self ownership and Rand, like all the rest, clearly does not believe in self ownership.

  20. Am I the only one who thinks he looks like little finger/ carceitti in that picture?

  21. NO NO NO. Our Libertarian Candidate must be PERFECT. He must be a robot, programmed only to follow the LP platform.

    Or we don’t vote. So nyeah nyeah…we don’t voooote….we looooossse….

  22. There you go again Nick…. The only flavor of Libertarianism is one that does not include Religious Conscience. The dogmatic secular libertarian cult needs to learn to accept people of faith and understand that that faith does not rob secular people of their liberty to abstain from God.

  23. If this guy gets the nomination then I will vote for the first time in my life(I’m 28). I would have voted for his father but he never got the chance.

    I don’t agree with everything the guy says but I do agree with a lot of what he says and that’s a hell of a lot more than what I can say for any of the other pieces of shit running for office.

    What I’m really looking forward to is the rant from Hihn about how the Paul’s are the AntiChrist and will cause children and kittens the world over to die. They may even be the key piece to beginning the Great Tribulation, i don’t know, only Hihn knows.

  24. Hi nick,

    I guess that when you are in a cult and the leader of that cult does things that are completely anathema to the values of that cult there still will be cult members willing to defend you. I’m sure that if l. Ron Hubbard announced that he was in therapy twice a week and was experimenting with LSD, there’d still be scientologists willing to say that he was all Clear.

    Nick, I’m going to vote for the candidate that is against the drug war, against a large-scale commitment to fight ISIS or the enemies of Israel, is pro-choice, and for marriage equality, etc., etc. and doesn’t change his positions because of political expediency. What kind of libertarian are you voting for?

    1. So you’re definitely not voting for a Democrat, right? (I already know Republicans are out, just wanting to judge your hypocrisy. I’m betting on a 10/10 level)

      1. Nope, not a Democrat and the most principled man in the Senate.

        1. I admit then that I stand corrected. I was honestly expecting you to say some hack Democrat candidate. Guess I’m the asshole.

        2. Who are you referring to as the most principled man in the Senate? I’m assuming you’re talking about Rand but I might as well ask.

          1. You think rand paul is principled? How come you guys have to apologize for him every 2nd article.

            No. I’m referring to Bernie sanders.

            1. Holy shit, you think Bernie Sanders is principled? Well I tried to be polite and a decent human being to you but I should have known better.

              I’m not sure whether I should just ignore you from henceforth or treat you with as much contempt as I do Tony.

              Bernie Sanders may be an Independent but he is a hardcore Democrat hack. 10 out of 10 on the hypocrisy scale as I initially presumed.

              Good ole socialism: greed, envy, class warfare, jealousy, lies, propaganda, deceit, it’s so wonderful.

            2. I think Rand is the most principled person running for office.

              Sanders has two principles. Steal from people and force them to live by divine right of kings.

            3. The communist. Figures.

          2. Sucker! I had a feeling he was describing another self identified socialist.

            Socialism is all about Principles. The principle of enslaving your fellow human beings.

  25. The thing to remember is that most people who are identified in polls & to a lesser extent by their own statement, as libertarian are what you might call libertarianish. They’re not radicals, so why need their favorite candidates be?

  26. Are you kidding me? Has he ever been Libertarian..ISH? I am certain I am not the only one that has been screaming this for the last 4+ years.

    Lets hope this is the beginning of the end for this sick fascination Nick et al. have for Ol’ Same as the Old Boss Randy.

    1. Who do you like, or at least tolerate then?

  27. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  28. RP has two options.

    Stay fairly libertarian and definitely not get nominated

    Sell out and have a small chance at the nomination.

    Which one is more likely?

  29. Rand Paul introduced “Life at Conception” Act in 2013. (This is on his Senate web page.) This would amend the Constitution to ban all abortions, and probably open the door to banning most forms of birth control. This proposal, which would give government the power to invade people’s private lives, is definitely anti-libertarian.

  30. Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He is a fake. He is a right-to-lifer. He supports big-government in your doctor’s office, and big government in your genitals or if you are male, in your wife’s or sister’s or mother’s genitals. He supports having big government reach into your body (or your wife’s body or your sister’s body or your mother’s body) and tell you what you may do there. He supports government enslavement of pregnant women.

    If “libertarian” doesn’t mean pro-choice on abortion, then it doesn’t mean anything. It’s time to run Rand Paul and all right-to-lifers out of the Libertarian Party, and tell them never to come back.

    “An embryo has no rights… a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.”–Ayn Rand.

    “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.”–Ayn Rand.

    1. But….an unborn child has inheritance rights in the courts. Also if a pregnant woman is murdered the offender is charged with two counts of murder. As you can see US law says the unborn has rights.

      DNA says it’s human, and by science’s own description of life, it’s alive. Only a self serving narcissist would refuse to acknowledge that others might see abortion as the ending of a human life. And what’s more “libertarian” than the defending of another person’s right to life?

      You’re not being very rational or scientific.

      1. BTW…who gives a shit what Ayn Rand said?

        1. The Founders agreed with her. States allowed abortion at the time of the Founding.

      2. “DNA says it’s human, and by science’s own description of life, it’s alive”

        Hmm, so is the skin that is flaking off your body, your sperm that you waste in a tissue and the eggs that end up down the toilet…let alone many other living parts of our bodies.

        And since when did you guys believe in science?

        1. You have the right to destroy your own body or parts of your own body. You do not have the right to destroy others’ bodies (I suppose, without their consent).

          That’s not hard to understand, right? I mean, that’s a big part of NAP.

          1. Ace, the NAP does not protect trespassers. If a trespasser refuses to leave your property when ordered off, then you are entitled to drive him off your property using aggressive force against him, even deadly force if necessary, and the NAP does not and should not protect him from you.

            If the trespasser is located inside your body, rather than on your external property, then even more so, because body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, more intimate form of ownership than ownership of property.

            I hope that’s not hard to understand.

            1. Ah, so the unborn are “trespassers”. Didn’t know they had the option to quit being a “trespasser”.

              In fact, the only response to the “aggression” shown here by a tiny human (who didn’t ask to be created) is a proportional one, not a disproportional one like you insist is necessary.

              If someone fell on your property, half-dead, and couldn’t be moved (for whatever reason) for months and would die if you moved them, you would kill them to get them off your property, right?

              The cult of the child killer is a strong one, lacking in so very many ethical principles. You can’t even keep NAP straight, how will you learn to “do unto others”?

              1. Ace, according to libertarian principle, your property is your property. You are entitled to drive off anyone you don’t want there, even a half-dead person who “can’t” be moved (unless you have previously agreed to a binding contract allowing him to use your property). You are entitled to use force, even deadly force, to do so. His need does not entitle him to use your property, just as a starving person’s need for food does not entitle him to steal your money to buy food. That’s libertarianism 101. If your body, rather than your property, is in question, then even more so because body-ownership is a stronger, deeper, more intimate form of ownership than property-ownership.

                You do not seem to understand libertarianism, or the NAP. You need to go back and reread your Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and Murray Rothbard. Perhaps the first and foremost principle of libertarianism is that you don’t owe anyone else a living. Another person’s NEED does not entitle him to take what he needs from you.

                You should learn what libertarianism is before you post about it.

                1. Actually, my understanding of proportional response (justice) comes from Rothbard.

                  Also, just because it’s in your body, doesn’t mean it’s yours. If I swallow the Hope diamond that doesn’t make it mine. As what’s inside her is more valuable than a simple diamond (a human being with rights of its own), the point is even more important.

                  You don’t own the little one just because it’s in you. You don’t owe it anything, perhaps (certainly), but you may not kill it. Killing it is aggression.

                  If she really wishes to be rid of it without killing it, there are plenty of women I know of who would take it for her.

                  1. RE: “If I swallow the Hope diamond that doesn’t make it mine.” Bad analogy–you are not allowed to swallow the Hope diamond in the first place (unless you buy it first). You are right that stealing something and then placing it in your body doesn’t make it yours, but that’s because stealing it in the first place is forbidden. In any case this whole argument does not apply to a fetus, which does not exist before you conceive it in your body.

                    RE: “You don’t owe it anything, perhaps (certainly), but you may not kill it.” WRONG! If the trespasser refuses or fails to leave when ordered, then you are entitled to use deadly force to expel it. Libertarianism 101.

                    If your objection is based on the killing vs letting-die distinction, then you should support medical abortion. Medical abortion has no direct effect on the embryo or fetus, but merely detaches it from the mother and leaves it to die on its own. None of the three drugs used in medical abortions has any direct effect on the fetus or embryo. RU486 affects only the uterus and the interface between uterus and placenta. Methotrexate affects only trophoblastic tissue which is growing to be placenta (pre-placental tissue). Misoprostol causes the uterus to contract. None has any direct effect on the fetus.

                    CONTINUES BELOW

                    1. CONTINUING:

                      RE: “If she really wishes to be rid of it without killing it, there are plenty of women I know of who would take it for her.” Unfortunately, this would require her to endure full-term labor and delivery, which is a major medical/surgical trauma, and is ALWAYS either very expensive or life-threatening if you don’t pony up the money for modern obstetric care. The fetus is not entitled to force the pregnant woman to endure this, and you are not entitled to force her to endure it on the fetus’ behalf, and neither is the government entitled to do so, and she is entitled to prevent it, even by using deadly force against her fetus. Just as YOU would be entitled to use deadly force against someone who tried to subject you to a similar medical/surgical trauma against YOUR will.

                    2. The little human got created against its will, and now you want to kill it (let it die) against its will. It is not a trespasser anymore than if you created an immobile (but completely formed) human on your own land and then decided you didn’t want it anymore and so shot it (or let it starve).

                      If you create it, you are indeed responsible to care for it until you find it someone else who will do it, or until it can care for itself.

                      The sad thing is, there are so very many who would be willing to relive the woman of her poor choices if she would only accept that her poor decisions created a human with unalienable rights. What she needs to do is so very little compared to actually raising the little human.

                    3. Let’s assume that the woman was raped, and she has no want of the little human. Fair enough, she was wronged. But she was wronged by the rapist, and not the little human. That one has done nothing to her, and she is now deciding that justice is… killing the innocent. In this case, the rapist can now be charged with rape AND “forcing the woman to go through a birth”.

                      It is quite sad to see that so very many people don’t understand that murder is quite important to NAP and that it is of a higher level than trespassing. If it’s really that big an issue, then send the little human a bill for time using the woman’s body plus interest.

                      Quid est Aequitas? Repayment. If someone steals from you, they repay it with interest. If they murder, then they repay it with their life. If they assault, the person may beat them.

                      If they trespass, you may not kill them unless they will not leave (not cannot leave) or threaten you. If you simply shoot them, especially when they have been dumped there, immobilized and against their will, you are guilty of murder.

                    4. You are right that stealing something and then placing it in your body doesn’t make it yours, but that’s because stealing it in the first place is forbidden.

                      Interesting that you would give more importance to the thing owned than the owner. You made it, you deal with the consequences. It has rights as a living human, don’t murder it.

                      If the trespasser refuses or fails to leave when ordered, then you are entitled to use deadly force to expel it.

                      Even if this were true (it’s only true when there is no other recourse), it matters not, because the little one didn’t ask to be created inside her, and has no choice to leave. If you invite someone onto your property, then cut off their arms and legs, then demand they leave, you cannot kill them for failing to leave. Even if someone else cut off their arms and legs, you couldn’t kill them for failing to leave.

                      If your objection is based on the killing vs letting-die distinction, then you should support medical abortion.

                      Excepting that the person was involved in its creation. You decided to create it, now you don’t want it anymore. Too bad, it has rights. If you really want it out, then you still have to respect its rights (as it had no options in the matter) and give it to someone who will happily keep it alive.

                    5. Ace: RE: “If you invite someone onto your property, then cut off their arms and legs, then demand they leave, you cannot kill them for failing to leave.”

                      This analogy is bad; the situation where you invite someone onto your property is fundamentally different from conceiving a fetus. When someone accepts your invitation and enters your property, he GIVES UP something–the freedom and autonomy he was previously enjoying by being on his own property or on neutral property. When you cut off his arms and legs, you are damaging him, taking something from him, and making him worse off than he was before. This obligates you to restore his freedom to him, to compensate him for the damage, and to undo what you did by making him better off again. In contrast, conceiving a fetus does not make the fetus any worse off than it was before (it didn’t exist at all before), and takes nothing from it (before conception it has nothing to take, not even a self) and does not damage it in any way. Therefore, conceiving the fetus incurs NO obligation to give it more womb-time than the womb-owner chooses to give it.

                      CONTINUES BELOW

                    6. CONTINUING:

                      The fetus’ short life from conception until abortion is just so much gained for it–it has no legitimate basis for a complaint. It’s better to have a short life than no life at all! Donating blood does not obligate you to also donate the next transfusion the patient may need; similarly, giving a fetus a short life inside your body does not obligate you to also give it a longer one.

                      RE: “It has rights as a living human” Those rights do not include the right to take material from your bloodstream, nor the right to inject toxic metabolic end-products into your bloodstream, nor the right to subject you to full-term labor and delivery. No human being, born nor unborn, has the right to do those things to you, except by your continuing, ongoing consent, which may be revoked by you at any time.

                    7. You have no legitimate basis for complaint if you are killed as your “short” life (in the span of eternity) is meaningless.

                      Donating blood isn’t analogous as your blood is voluntarily given (or sold) and not a whole, just a part. Try again.

                      The little human has no choice in the matters of “taking” material, the woman is actively giving it. The only one who has the ability to inflict their will here is the woman, and to remove the immobile human inside her = killing it (when it hasn’t voluntarily done anything to her) which is murder.

                      If someone were to bump you in the street, could you kill them? Because your argument would have to be “yes”, they took your time, perhaps even bruised you, and you may value that time and injury infinitely. Well, unfortunately for your thought process, you may only demand back what was taken from you, and perhaps some interest. You may not kill because you were inconvenienced.

                      (No-one forced the woman to make the child, excepting in cases of rape. In that case, only the rapist did this to her and he must pay, not the innocent one. Punishing the innocent may make everyone feel better, but isn’t justice.)

                    8. Again, you have failed to read further, because I predicted this charge and answered it already. What if another took your arms and legs (or tied you up)? I have no right to kill you if you fail to remove yourself from my property.

                      And, excepting the case of rape, the person who invited you there was the property owner, and the owner knew beforehand that you would be unable to leave for 9 months.

                    9. WRONG! If a trespasser refuses or fails to leave your property because some other person has cut off his arms and legs, you are entitled to say “well then go sue that other person, but you must get off my property now.” And if the trespasser cannot leave, you are entitled to carry him to the edge of your property and dump him on the other side of that edge. Even if doing so causes his death. The guilty party in this case is not you, but the person who took his arms and legs from him. YOU DO NOT OWE HIM A LIVING. Libertarianism 101.

                    10. You don’t owe that man a “living”, you owe it to him not to kill him, as creating him and then leaving him to his death would be.

      3. It doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus is a person. What matters is not WHAT it is, but WHERE it is. If something is located inside your body, then you are entitled to have it killed, even if it’s a person. That’s part of the meaning of the word “your” in the phrase “your body”.

        You wrote: “What’s more ‘libertarian’ than the defending of another person’s right to life”? Defending the “right” to life of a TRESPASSER is not libertarian. If a trespasser on your property refuses to leave when ordered to do so, then libertarian principle gives you the right to drive the trespasser off your property, using deadly force if necessary. If the trespasser is located inside your body, rather than on your external property, then you are even more entitled to get rid of him, because body-ownership is a deeper, stronger, more intimate form of ownership than ownership of mere external property.

        CONTINUES BELOW

        1. CONTINUING:

          Furthermore, the unwelcome unborn is engaged in several violations of the Non-Aggression-Principle against the mother. Specifically, the unwelcome unborn is stealing nutrients, water, and oxygen from her bloodstream, and it is injecting its toxic metabolic end-products, including CO2 and creatinine, into her bloodstream, without her continuing permission. These are two forbidden violations of the NAP. Also, the unwelcome unborn is preparing to subject her to the major medical/surgical trauma of full-term labor and delivery, which is another violation of the NAP against her. The Self-Defense Principle entitles her to defend herself, even by using deadly force against her fetus, even though the fetus may be a person with rights. Even if the fetus were fully conscious, sitting up in the womb and writing poetry, the womb-owner would still be entitled to defend herself against him/her.

          BulletGibson, YOU, not I, are failing to be rational and scientific.

  31. Rand Paul also favors massive increases in defense spending at a time when no foreign power threatens our country, and opposes legalization of marijuana.

    1. Sort of. I think the defense spending issue was covered in a Reason article last week. He would only support it contingent upon balancing cuts to pay for it. I’m less clear on his MJ position. Regardless, I doubt he will appoint anyone like Bill Bennett to run the DEA.

  32. “the essential role the church plays in the U.S. government” is to shut the fuck up when discussing policy.

    Empirical standards have permanently trumped theological and literary FOR A REASON.

  33. Is Rand Paul Becoming Less “Libertarian-ish?

    Probably. You can scare the 80% of Republicans who already believe you and your daddy are die Wolkenkuckucksheim

  34. Not really important, but who is the girl to Rand’s left in the photo at the top of the article?

  35. Listen up you die hard libertarians. Before you dump on Rand (which is what the status wants) he is the best possible chance for a some what libertarian/constitutionalist to make this far in a hundred years. Back in 1979 when I was 12 I hung on every word Reagan said. When I was disappointed at something he said, my father who I thought was conservative (was actually libertarian) told me that he (Reagan) has to say certain things to get elected. This country was taken down incrementally, it has to be brought back up the same way. Don’t cute off your nose to spite your face. It effects us all.

    1. Skydog, your argument can be used to support ANYONE. You could just as well say, vote for a Socialist, or for someone who believes in the divine right of kings, because he agrees with libertarianism on SOME issues (free speech, perhaps, or legalizing marijuana) and incrementalism is necessary.

      Rand Paul is no libertarian and no constitutionalist. He’s a fake. If we allow ourselves to be snookered by him, he will betray libertarianism and allow government to reach into our personal lives and tell us what to do and what not to do.

  36. Rand Paul is following the Obama model for radicals getting elected. Pretend to be centerish, but your base knows what really lies beneath. The difference is that Rand Paul is libertarian, not anti-American. He’s not going to be the one who lets the military go into decline.

    1. Obama is center-ish.
      Paul is a joke – he goes wherever the money or power is. Period.

      Obama at least has some sort of an inner guide and vision….Rand is just fungible (a populist) who would sell his soul (if he was actually religious – but he’s probably a pretender) for more power.

      That’s dangerous.

      Let’s see how Rand carefully explains to those who are benefiting from the ACA why they should be happy to have it removed. Or, more accurately, why they should let him rename it and keep most of the same programs…that’s the populist way.

      Heck, even Forbes is now singing the praises of the ACA.
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/br…..een-worse/

  37. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  38. Ah, the Kochs are starting early with their “he’s not really a libertarian but we GOPers are the next best thing” saturation.

    Being as they pledged 900 million or more to this race, you are likely to see some big wins by Rand – I doubt the Kochs would prefer Cruz…..although they will jump on whoever they can get to beat those big bad ACLU liberty loving Dems and Libs!

    Rand has already given up 50% or more of his supposed world view. Mark my words – he will deny evolution and give up most of the remaining 50% before he makes it to the end of Primary season. Then he will stump for Israel and entertain the warmongers if he makes it to the general.

    He has the perfect makings of a Fascist – because, in the end, he listens to only money. Now, it may be that modern libertarians believe that’s the “free market” and that listening to the money always end in a perfect society, but I’d beg to differ. Money can be used to spread propaganda to the extreme and to buy off those forces which would normally disagree or be aligned against you.

    It will be fun to watch. I see blowback in NH against the Free State Movement already (from residents) and if he can’t make it there by a really serious margin, he can’t hope to make it anywhere.

  39. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  40. Sorry Rand. If Hillary does as the Democratic Media has already instructed her, and promises a Jubilee of all student loans, she will get the Millennial vote. Other issues cannot compete with cash in hand.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.