Rand Paul

Here's the Lamest Liberal Attack on Rand Paul You'll Read Today

The 2016 presidential campaign is going to be a long haul. Let's try to stick to the facts as it gets rolling.

|

Credit: C-SPAN

Writing at The Week, liberal pundit Ryan Cooper says GOP presidential hopeful Rand Paul is "building a bridge—to the early 1800s." Why? Because Paul is "dedicated to a libertarian vision of government—one drastically at odds with the last century of American governance and more." What evidence does Cooper offer in support of this startling analysis? According to Cooper:

[Rand Paul is] a supporter of the Lochner doctrine, named after a 1905 Supreme Court case that conveniently discovered an unwritten "liberty of contract" in the 14th Amendment and thus abolished most laws regulating working conditions. He's a fan of the Supreme Court decisions against the New Deal. His latest budget argues that anything but a flat tax is likely unconstitutional. It seems clear that if he had his druthers, he really would abolish everything but the police, the military, and the courts.

Cooper has managed to stuff a lot of nonsense inside one short paragraph. For starters, the right to liberty of contract was not "discovered" by the Supreme Court in its 1905 Lochner decision. That right was first protected by the Court against infringement by a state government in the 1897 case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana. But the idea of an unenumerated constitutional right to contract goes back further than that. It appears, for example, in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress passed over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. That pioneering federal law was designed in part to protect the freedmen and their white Unionist allies against the depredations of the former Confederate states in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. Among other things, that 1866 law declares that U.S. citizens

of every race and color…shall have the same right, in every state and territory…to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore, according to Ohio Congressman John Bingham, the author of Section One of the 14th Amendment, one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to provide extra constitutional support for civil rights spelled out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So it's simply not true to say that the Supreme Court "conveniently discovered an unwritten 'liberty of contract' in the 14th Amendment." The concept of liberty of contract becomes quite evident once you examine the 14th Amendment's text and history. Put differently, Lochner protected an individual right that was well-rooted in longstanding American legal principles, including the free labor principles that produced the 14th Amendment. (For a more detailed discussion of this constitutional text and history, check out the first chapter of my book.)

What about Cooper's other assertion, that Lochner "abolished most laws regulating working conditions"? Once again, Cooper is wrong.

In Lochner v. New York the Supreme Court invalidated the maximum working hours provision of the state's 1895 Bakeshop Act. So yes, that single regulatory provision was struck down. But Lochner left the rest of the Bakeshop Act's numerous other workplace regulations in place. Indeed, as Justice Rufus Peckham's Lochner opinion clearly stated, "inspection of the premises," "height of ceiling," "cementing or tiling of floors," furnishing proper washrooms and waterclosets," and "providing proper drainage, plumbing, and painting" were among the perfectly constitutional regulations imposed by the Bakeshop Act. So much for the abolition of most workplace regulations.

It's also worth noting that despite its bad reputation in some progressive circles, Lochner actually served as a key legal precedent for several of the most important civil liberties cases of the early 20th century, such as when the Supreme Court struck down a Jim Crow residential segregation law on Lochnerian grounds, and when the Court, citing Lochner, invalidated a Ku Klux Klan-supported law in Oregon which banned private schools. In other words, Lochner is not a dirty word.

To be sure, liberals have good reasons to be critical of Rand Paul's positions on certain economic and legal issues. Liberals also have reasons to be critical of Lochner. But none of those reasons are an excuse for sloppy arguments founded on bogus information. The 2016 presidential campaign is going to be a long haul. Let's try to stick to the facts as it gets rolling.

NEXT: Can Rand Paul's Positions on Abortion and Gay Marriage Be Defended on Libertarian Grounds?

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. Yes. Lamest liberal attack so far. But at least they’re getting them out of their system early.

    1. Getting it out of their system? If anything they are just warming up.

      1. And this is the only place you may see those fake assertions refuted.

    2. Getting them out of their system? Dude, this is just starting. There will be stupidity that will be coming out that will shock even you. Yes, even you, with your amazing capacity to understand stupidity.

      1. I see what you did there sir…

    3. Seriously? Cooper’s bullshit is now going to be a reference for future stupidity to cite.

      1. I prefer to think of it as…stupidity so powerful that it serves as an inspiration for stupidity in general!

      2. So we’re going to be measuring stupidity in Coopers now? Is that article the baseline Cooper?

        1. No, stupidity is still measured in Marcottes, with this article being about a .5 on that scale. I mean that in a year, some dumbfuck at the Times is going to link to this article as proof that Rand Paul wants to put 8 year olds back to work in the coal mines. It’s on record now, and anything debunking it will be ignored. That’s how the liberal smear machine works.

        2. I like this and nominate it to be an h&r meme.

          “This article measures in at four Coopers”

    4. The lamest liberal attack will bring up Ron Paul and the racist newsletter. They’ll consider that revenge for the right going after Obama for the Rev Wright connection.

      Even though Obama’s politics and disdain for Israel is indistinguishable from his pastor’s, and Rand clashed with his dad’s position on the American Sniper, Israel, and a whole lot of other issues.

  2. It seems clear that if he had his druthers, he really would abolish everything but the police, the military, and the courts.

    Works for me.

    1. We could cut the military by half as well

      1. And the police by at least that.

        1. Absolutely

        2. Why only half? Are we getting soft?

      2. By half, and you’d still have 10x what’s needed. Cutting military by half is like a 1,000 lbs person losing 5 lbs.

        1. Wouldn’t it technically be like a 1,000 lb person losing 500lbs?

          1. Stop with the details, it’s the image that counts, not the numbers. I’m being a SJW clone. What are you, a teathugliKKKan?

            1. What are you, a teathugliKKKan?

              He just challenged you with math. Who else microaggesses like that?

              1. I was hoping for conclusive poll results to supplement that winning math use.

                463 out of 500 people polled by State Is Great, Inc. agree, a supremely obese person is not as supremely obese after halving his weight. Story at 11.

    2. Exactly my thoughts, except Police. What purpose is there for federal police? Oh, wait, conflating all government with federal government….

      Leave all the rest to the states…

      Also, I agree, that we could easily cut half the military….

      1. I can see some coordinating role for an fbi in some situations. You can 86 the rest of the federal LEAs though.

        1. I hear you, Eddie. You’re so wise.

          signed,

          Clyde Tolson.

        2. I was thinking US Marshals instead of the FBI. The FBI is just too tainted to be salvaged/trusted.

          1. Yeah no Marshal ever did anything hinky. Ever. They’re paragons of virtuous justice stewardship.

            1. Yeah no Marshal ever did anything hinky. Ever. They’re paragons of virtuous justice stewardship.

              Yes I am.

              1. I’d send you to L and back for making that comment.

            2. If you shoot ’em, it saves you the cost of a trial and a hangin’.

              1. Let the free market work as intended. Bid out the hanging to a PPV facilitator and use the proceeds to fund the court system. There’s certainly no way any unintended consequence could result from that strategy.

        3. I can see some coordinating role for an fbi in some situations.

          That, sure. I would make their primary mission the investigation of other police departments civil rights abuses. Having an independent agency investigate every shot fired by cops, and I mean every single shot, would make the police problem orders of magnitude better. As it is cops have virtually no fear of accountability. They need to know they are being watched by someone with the power to …..oh fuck. Who am I kidding……

          1. I’d rather leave that job to local citizens picked at random instead of another state paid organization

          2. I’m thinking along the lines of the ability to bring larges resource into action when needed whether it be a national manhunt or dealing with a large criminal organization.

      2. What purpose is there for federal police?

        To catch the Duke boys when the General Lee crosses the state line.

    3. “Works for me” was exactly my thought!

    4. he really would abolish everything but the police, the military, and the courts.

      Such a proposal would probably poll better than ObamaCare, at least.

  3. “Rand Paul is] a supporter of the Lochner doctrine, named after a 1905 Supreme Court case that conveniently discovered an unwritten “liberty of contract” in the 14th Amendment and thus abolished most laws regulating working conditions.”

    Well then wouldn’t Rand Paul be building a bridge to the early 1900s rather than the early 1800s?

    Get your dates right, Cooper.

    1. It’s all projection? Cooper wants to roll things back to the early 1800s.

    2. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

      Looks like homey needs to “discover” the ninth amendment.

      1. If by “discover” you mean have a two-by-four with the ninth amendment printed on shoved up his ass. And then set on fire.

  4. Tweets and Facebook posts don’t require facts. Just sanctimony.

    1. Well shit, that’s unfortunate. Now where are The Nickster and Rico Suave going to earn their bonus points?

  5. I will check out assertion that RP thinks that only the flat tax is constitutional. However if he does he is exactly wrong. The Supremes rule that the income tax is an excise tax. An excise tax is a tax on a privilege. The INCOME ITSELF IS NOT TAXED, but is only used as a measure of the privilege that is the object of the tax. What federal privilege did you exercise to earn a living for yourself and you family?
    IF Rand keeps up this stupid flat tax idea he is actually violating the constitution. The income tax came from a coalition of classical liberals, progressives and populists because of corruption by late 19th century Republicans granting special privileges to corporations like Railroads, and using protective tariffs to fund government.
    Libertarians can make common ground with the left if they understood this. The income tax is properly a tax on federal privilege. If it is applied as such I favor a progressive income tax, not a flat tax. A flat tax negates the classical liberal desire to tax privilege for the sake of mere convenience.

    1. Quick question. How does the fringe on the flag of the tax courts affect the constitutionality of the income tax?

      1. What color is the fringe?

        1. What color is the fringe on the boathouse at Hereford?

          1. There is no boathouse at Hereford. It’s just over the border in Watting-on-Thames. Everyone knows this.

    2. I don’t like any tax based on earnings. I would prefer a sales tax if anything. Reward saving, don’t punish working.

      1. Then there are the massive invasions of privacy required to collect an income tax.

        1. Presuming you meant sales tax, that isn’t true, or at least not necessarily true.

          1. No, I mean income tax. It is bad not only because it punishes work, but because it requires people (or their employers) to disclose how much money they make to the government.

            1. Got it. Agree 100%

            2. Also, the bloody goddamned paperwork.

      2. Exactly this. The income tax has ipso facto invited gross invasions… Immoral invasions into the private lives of every American, working and non working. It’s used to justify civil forfeiture, spying, and all manner of government aggression. The list of evils wrought by the income tax are too numerous to mention. A national sales tax, vat tax, however you want to define it is infinitely better than any tax on “monies earned”.

      3. +1000
        The IRS thugs will be auditing you soon because of that comment. Wish the civil servants actually worked for us instead of a corrupt system.

    3. “The income tax is properly a tax on federal privilege. If it is applied as such I favor a progressive income tax, not a flat tax. A flat tax negates the classical liberal desire to tax privilege for the sake of mere convenience.”

      How is the income tax ‘taxing privilege’ rather than taxing work? Please show your work rather than just making vague assertions.

      1. Because your earnings were clearly a result of government privilege and not your labor. He actually says that in the original post and then makes claims on libertarian ideals. Pretty impressive.

        1. You didn’t build that!

        2. Government roads, government schools, etc…

      2. How is the income tax ‘taxing privilege’ rather than taxing work? Please show your work rather than just making vague assertions.

        Well because if I’m the son of a billionaire and don’t have to work for a living, the income tax will account for that privilege and…oh, wait.

      3. Please show your work

        If there were work involved, he’d have to pay a tax on it?

    4. You must have a large ass to be able to pull that much stuff out of it.

    5. The income tax came about in preparation for Prohibition, since prohibiting alcohol would deprive the federal government of its main source of revenue at the time: alcohol taxes.

      1. There’s something satisfying about a government funded by alcohol taxes. Its size and intrusiveness can only increase if we are drunk enough not to care.

    6. Also:

      “The income tax came from a coalition of classical liberals, progressives and populists because of corruption by late 19th century Republicans granting special privileges to corporations like Railroads, and using protective tariffs to fund government.”

      Total lie. The earliest income taxes were all implemented to pay for war and were implemented before the late 1800s since they were used to pay for the war of 1812 and the Civil War.

      Furthermore, there was a single year between 1894 and 1895 when we had a small income tax, but there was a court decision that essentially invalidated it. We then had no income tax until 1913. I therefore don’t know how you can argue the income tax is related to the actions of late-1800s Republicans when the tax was actually initially implemented to pay for wars and was brought back permanently by Woodrow Wilson.

      1. I think he is probably referring to the amendment allowing the modern income tax. Otherwise I have no idea what point he is making.

      2. I think you mean “St. Woodrow Wilson,” Irish.

        1. Why do people think Wilson is not an evil piece of shit again? I can never remember.

          1. Something something League of Nations Princeton?

          2. A large number of Wilson Administration officials went on to serve in the FDR Administration. They had to clean up Wilson’s reputation so it wouldn’t tar FDR’s administration.

            It looks like they did a good job.

          3. Why do people think Wilson is not an evil piece of shit again? I can never remember.

            Because under his reign the federal government expanded at a rate that was unprecedented at the time. And as we all know, more government means more freedom. After all, how can you be free without having to ask permission and obey orders from the government?

    7. What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      1. That’s what you get for reading it out loud.

      2. PLAIGIARIST!

      3. I’ll take “my wife the tramp” for $1000.

    8. I’ve always thought that you could make the argument that different tax rates are obviously unconstitutional because of equal protection. Unequal rates are you know, not equal. I have no idea if this is what Rand says. Or if even really believes it’s unconstitutional.

    9. Maybe I have just had the tractor engine making my head hum all day. Maybe it is the copious amount of cognac I drank last night. Or maybe I am just dense.

      “An excise tax is a tax on a privilege. The INCOME ITSELF IS NOT TAXED, but is only used as a measure of the privilege that is the object of the tax. What federal privilege did you exercise to earn a living for yourself and you family?”

      Can someone explain to me why this is not an argument against the income tax? Also, which privilege exactly am I exercising? Creating value? Calling that a privilege seems to contradict the plain wording of the Declaration of Independence.

      I think someone is trying to rationalize envy.

      1. I honestly have no idea what it’s talking about. My ability and willingness to work is now a privilege granted to me by the government? That seems retarded enough but I’m still confused.

    10. Dammit. Drive-by troll.

    11. And this is why peak derp can never be attained. Everyone is now dumber for having read that comment

  6. “He’s a fan of the Supreme Court decisions against the New Deal.”

    OMG what a monster!!!1!

  7. Usually if you discuss Con Law it helps to know Con Law. Of lawyers and law school graduates, very few know Con Law beyond what they had to learn in school and for the bar exam. Con Law is a sliver of a segment of a niche in the gigantic world of jurisprudence. Most who pretend to know it don’t know dick about it. But they pontificate greatly, as if the spirit of their Most Valuable Playing Card supreme court justice were within their mind, guiding them.

    Random liberal/progressive/Democrat writers speaking on Con Law and attacking Rand Paul on the basis of their parrotted/cribbed/uninformed conclusions? Ding ding ding, SJW mega-points, gimme a bite-sized quote of Alan Dershowitz or Glenn Greenwald saying something, after all, those two guys are geniuses, as Pop Culture avows with great frequency.

    Meanwhile, I can’t recall the last time Dershy or Glennie said something jurisprudentially accurate in Constitutional Law matters. Politically persuasive to SJWs — yes, I’ll give them that much. But no more.

    1. Ryan Cooper’s presentation at his Home Base shows him to be a serious scholar of Constitutional Law, as demonstrated by his gaydar-transmission photo, complete with sexy pirate earring:

      Ryan Cooper @ TheWeek (Link opens in new window)

      1. No self-respecting gay man would leave that haircut showing around the massive bald spot.

        1. I didn’t say anything about how much he respected himself.

      2. Good grief. That photo screams ‘smug douche bag’.

  8. Hey, ya’ll, does anyone want to talk about Rand Paul? Just asking…

  9. I thought Krugman’s blog post explaining that neither libertarians nor populist democrats exist was stupider, personally.

        1. Nicole, if I ask you to kick me in the nuts, it’s not a NAP violation if you then proceed to do so.

          1. Good point.

            1. But if you ask her to kick you in the nuts and she has a contact grenade in the toe of her jackboot and you don’t know it, that would be a violation of the NAP.

              Considering Krugman’s abject stupidity, I can’t say I blame her for hesitating.

    1. It’s Paul Krugman’s world, and we all just fit in whatever box he says we’re in.

      1. Well, he has a prize! Do you have a prize? I guess I have to go with the guy who got a prize.

        /derp

        1. My first platoon after boot camp named me “Most Likely to Cause a Nationally Televized Incident”. Does that count?

    2. Jesus, the first two paragraphs that I could tolerate were stupid even for him.

      1. It was bad.

      2. I would say that citing Corey Robin is a new low for Krugman, but then I’ve barely read anything from him the past several years. It’s amazing that the entire column is just conjecture. Everything is just pulled out of his (or Robin’s) ass.

      3. Both social insurance and civil rights are solvents that dissolve some of the restraints that hold people in place, be they unhappy workers or unhappy spouses. And that’s part of why people like me support them.
        .
        In any case, bear this in mind whenever you read some pontificating about a libertarian moment, or whatever. There are almost no genuine libertarians in America ? and the people who like to use that name for themselves do not, in reality, love liberty.

        .
        I suppose the people who worry that Krugman’s “social insurance” programs necessitate depriving the liberty of the ones who actually have to foot the bill don’t count as “lovers of liberty”. I suppose if you get to decide what words mean, no true Scotsman libertarian would dare argue with you.

        1. Makes me want to hire a pack of gay handicapped illegal immigrants to beat the shit out of Krugman and see if he has the balls to claim they are not at liberty to do so. Where’s your love of liberty now, Paulie?

  10. That’s right, libertarians want to take us back to the 1880s. Progressives want to take us back to the 1930s. Forward!

  11. Has ENB written a piece on Rand yet? If not, what will it be about? Abortion? Prostitution? Ass-sex with Mexicans?

    1. This seems to be the lefts strategy so far:

      Rand’s a neocon

      Rand’s a biggot

      Rand’s a sexist

      Rand’s loves the NSA

      Rand wants a police state

      So she can just use any of those and run with it.

      Did I miss anything?

      1. Rand wants the gun-nut crackers to rape everyone at gunpoint while wearing a KKKlan uniform and having a burning cross backdrop.

        Rand wants to prevent me from living forever thanks to the glories of gene-splicing technology made possible by Obamacare.

      2. Rand’s not a real libertarian

        Libertarians don’t exist

        Libertarians want a nightmare world where the poor are eaten alive by the rich

        1. Libertarians want a nightmare world where the poor are eaten alive by the rich

          Ssh!!

          1. Alive? No. Just very rare. Aging does wonders for the flavor.

          2. This is completely untrue. Without a poor underclass, where am I going to get my orphan slaves?

      3. That is also, interestingly enough, the Republican strategy to defeat Rand Paul as well, but mirrored, point by point.

  12. But the idea of an unenumerated constitutional right to contract goes back further than that.

    How is the right to contract unenumerated? It’s specifically spelled out in Article I, Section 10:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    1. That’s not an express admission of the right to contract, but you’re free to suggest otherwise. There’s a simpler way to express the right to form contracts: you say that all citizens may freely enter into contracts for whatever purpose.

      1. Except alienating their inalienable rights. The can’t sell themselves into permanent slavery and may not be able to take a contract out on their own life. Although as those were enumerated in the Declaration and not the Constitution, this may be open to interpretation.

        1. Especially since, as between the Declaration and any organic document following its various declaratory provisions, the close follower was the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution.

          It’s almost like there was a couple decades of debate about this shit.

          1. So you believe people can sell themselves into slavery? I was fairly certain that the Constitution prevented this, although you could import slaves and the children of slaves were still slaves even in born in the US. Did I misunderstand that Section?

            1. What are you talking about? I wasn’t discussing, let along mentioning in passing, the subject of slavery anywhere, but thanks for the sad, dishonest attempt at misdirection.

              Try sticking to your original handle, it’s almost persuasive when you do that.

        2. “The can’t sell themselves into permanent slavery”
          I would disagree with this statement since we all have to pay taxes otherwise we are punished, this is no different than slavery to the government.

  13. When you’re a leftist journalist, your job is pretty easy. You rely on your audience being not only clueless, but being a sort of borg that just mindlessly accept any bullshit you throw at them. And you can count of them not fact checking anything you say and marching off to battle hoisting their new talking points and screeching the message.

    Where have I recently seen a good example of this… let me think … it’s coming to me…

    1. There’s a reason lazy, stupid, integrity-less fucks are so drawn to partisanship.

      1. Fear of their own reflection in the mirror?

  14. [Rand Paul is] a supporter of the Lochner doctrine, named after a 1905 Supreme Court case that conveniently discovered an unwritten “liberty of contract” in the 14th Amendment and thus abolished most laws regulating working conditions. He’s a fan of the Supreme Court decisions against the New Deal. His latest budget argues that anything but a flat tax is likely unconstitutional. It seems clear that if he had his druthers, he really would abolish everything but the police, the military, and the courts.

    Yeah…that’s what I’m hoping for.

    1. Would be nice!

      I have the same reaction to Holmes’s dissent: “the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” It’d be nice if it did!

  15. This is the lamest attack on Rand Paul so far:

    Rand Paul Suggests Disturbingly That He Enjoyed Having Summer Jobs as a Teen

    The relevant passage:

    From an early age, I worked. I taught swimming lessons, I mowed lawns. I did landscaping, I put roofs on houses. I painted houses. I never saw work, though, as punishment. Work always gave me a sense of who I am. Self-esteem can’t be given, it must be earned. Work is not punishment, work is the reward!
    Ah, yes, the summertime opportunity to mow an old man’s lawn in 94-degree heat while, elsewhere, your friends played basketball and drank Cokes with girls?such a coveted reward for making it through the school year.

    I always thought money was the reward invovled [sic] in that situation. Is Rand Paul a damn communist?

    That’s the entire article, btw.

    1. I screwed up the indenting:

      The relevant passage:

      From an early age, I worked. I taught swimming lessons, I mowed lawns. I did landscaping, I put roofs on houses. I painted houses. I never saw work, though, as punishment. Work always gave me a sense of who I am. Self-esteem can’t be given, it must be earned. Work is not punishment, work is the reward!

      Ah, yes, the summertime opportunity to mow an old man’s lawn in 94-degree heat while, elsewhere, your friends played basketball and drank Cokes with girls?such a coveted reward for making it through the school year.

      I always thought money was the reward invovled [sic] in that situation. Is Rand Paul a damn communist?

      1. Thinking that money is a “reward” you get for working rather than a contractual obligation for a mutually-agreed-upon exchange would explain why so many people have a problem with the “unfairness” of some lucky people being rewarded handsomely for their work while those less fortunate aren’t. Doesn’t a cashier work as hard as a brain surgeon? Why does it seem that all the brain surgeons are lucky enough to get fat paychecks and none of the cashiers have that same luck?

      2. while, elsewhere, your friends played basketball and drank Cokes with girls

        Nice fantasy. The reality was, everyone I knew worked after school, and everyone hated it. I’m sure Paul is using hindsight to paint a rosy picture that never happened but I won’t hold it against him. This time.

        1. I liked my stupid summer job. I worked outside, operated heavy equipment, got tan, had abz, smoked dope, and missed several obvious-in-hindsight opportunities to bang horny housewives. Everyone should have the experience.

          1. I worked in my mom’s office. It was all old ladies and it smelled like an ashtray.

        2. I wouldn’t want to live today on my summer job, but working with a fair number of attractive, oppositely sexed peers with very few responsibilities was fun at the time.

  16. Look, the d-party has Shrill, Biden and the fake Indian. EVERY bit of artillery that’s available is gonna be fired and fired until the damn tubes melt if that’s what it takes.
    You’ve seen it from Tony; when proggies have no argument, they lie and lie big. A certain number of people won’t bother checking for accuracy.

    1. +1 Time On Target

  17. Journolist really hates Rand. The volume of stupid attacks on him has been staggering so far. I counted 9 insane anti-RP articles on the Salon front page yesterday.

    1. Even if you’re not a fan of Rand, the most positive thing you could say about a possible Rand Paul victory in November 2016 is that it may cause the entire Salon staff to drop dead from a collective aneurysm.

      (same with Ted Cruz, even if I can’t stand him)

      1. AtSalon, even rupturing blood vessels are collectivized.

  18. When can we get some Rand Paul coverage all up in here already? Sheesh!

  19. I love how anything except the “SPEND MORE ON EVERYTHING”, progressive-approach is always described in dystopian terms… as though minor tweaks to our federal spending *obviously* mean the End of the World

    Here we have a alleged graduate of the London School of Economics (and recent panel-guest alongside matt welch) asserting that the 2013 sequester will cause untold havok and misery across a broad swath of American society.

    “…damage will stretch far beyond jobs. The cuts will force a dramatic pullback in critical areas like health, education, housing and food security, all of which will transform the economy’s unhealed suffering into a state of pain difficult to fully comprehend. Quite frankly, it’s hard to see how many areas of the country will pull through.”

    No one of course wrote any articles in Alternet or Salon pointing out that the Sequester hasn’t actually *done fuck all*…. and still blithely refer to US budget policy as “austerity”

  20. Yeah, it’s a little weird how wrapped around the axle the progs get about Paul and about libertarians in general. Even in the unlikely event that Paul wins the election it’s not as if he’ll be able to just sail in and do whatever he wants. He’s not a Democrat after all.

    That last sentence was facetious of course, but honestly how much of his agenda will he get through? I suspect that if you want to see bipartisanship in Washington D.C. put a libertarian (or even libertarian-ish) president in the White House. Democrats and Republicans alike will work together to thwart him in every way possible, because of objections to libertarian principles, the negative effect that shrinking government would have on their privileges and power, and just the plain desire to “prove” that libertarianism “can’t work in the real world”.

    1. Libertarians cut holes in the plantation fence because we don’t get shrill about pot, Mexicans and ass-sex.

      “Wait there’s a position between 1984 and The Handmaiden’s Tale?”

      Can’t have that.

  21. dedicated to a libertarian vision of government?one drastically at odds with the last century of American governance and more.”

    So far so good on the facts…

    1. The last century of American governance has been one of increasing progressivism, or as it is known by its older name, fascism.

      His premises do not support his conclusion.

      1. Progressivism is really just fascism described with liberal sounding semantics.

  22. If I could go back in time and add something to the Constitution I might try to put something in about laws expiring after a period of years (4 maybe). At least we would have to discuss whether we want some laws periodically instead of it just becoming entrenched so deep we aren’t sure how to live without them.

  23. idea of an unenumerated constitutional right to contract goes back further than that. It appears, for example,

    To the Ninth Amendment, actually. Sheesh.

  24. Let’s try to stick to the facts as it gets rolling.

    Good fucking luck with that

  25. Let’s try to stick to the facts as it gets rolling.
    Are you serious? When has any campaign in the past 100 years (maybe ever) been based on facts. Campaigns are based on emotions and appealing to voters self interest, including imposing the winning group’s will on the losers. Money and egos are the drivers of elections, not facts.
    ROFL.

  26. This is a mess. Cooper’s brief depiction of the Lochner era is uncontroversial common knowledge. Lochner did indeed find a freedom of contract in the 14th Amendment by means that most conservatives would reject if it came to, say, a right to privacy. It’s one of the most ridiculed rulings in a long history of bad rulings by the US Supreme Court. And not because it went against the sacred words of the founders, but because it resulted in decades of real-world awfulness. Conservatives also criticize it for being an extreme example of judicial activism trumping state legislatures. The bottom line, to paraphrase Holmes, is that the constitution does not require a certain economic order–even if libertarianism is based largely on that premise.

    The era was so stagnant and bad for workers that even a large and conservative country such as this one dreamed up and enacted the New Deal. Between these two government actions–the Lochner and related rulings, and the New Deal–one of these was motivated purely by ideology, and the other was a reaction to that based on real-world necessities. Criticize the liberal policies of the mid-20th century all you want on ideological grounds. Here in the real world, they at least coincided with the greatest advancement in the well-being of humans in history. The problem with Rand Paul and all other libertarian ideologues is that they don’t care about human well-being, at least not in any terms that can be measured.

    1. Re: Tony,

      This is a mess.

      Here we go.

      Cooper’s brief depiction of the Lochner era is uncontroversial common knowledge.

      There’s no question that it is uncontroversial at least among your Think Progress friends.

      Lochner did indeed find a freedom of contract in the 14th Amendment

      Root’s point is that the freedom to contract already existed, which is the case.

      The era was so stagnant and bad for workers that even a large and conservative country such as this one dreamed up and enacted the New Deal.

      First you argue that Lochner is Constitutionally suspect and then you argue on its morality. Make up your mind. By the way, your history is way off. The New Deal was a series of encroachments dreamed and lobbied by industry and agricultural cronies, especially the NRA and the AAA.

    2. Here in the real world, they at least coincided with the greatest advancement in the well-being of humans in history.

      You think the New Deal legislation was a greater advancement for the well-being of humanity than our escape from the Malthusian Trap with by way of capitalism? You literally think a government program is all that was required to raise living standards? Abolish child labor? If only Tony lived in 1000 AD, he could have just told the local king to ban child labor and *poof* it would disappear.

      Responding to Tony posts literally takes the air out of me they’re so painfully stupid.

  27. [Rand Paul is] a supporter of the Lochner doctrine, named after a 1905 Supreme Court case that conveniently discovered an unwritten “liberty of contract” in the 14th Amendment

    I guess that for Ryan Cooper there can’t be such a thing as a right to contract, based on the scary quotes. Don’t bother shake that hand: your agreement with the other guy doesn’t exist. Cooper is simply making shit up to make his case or he is really that clueless about rights.

    1. I guess that for Ryan Cooper there can’t be such a thing as a right to contract

      Which means he supports serfdom at best and/or outright slavery at worst. These people are slavers of one type or another have no doubt.

      1. But, but…… Limited gov’t cause they will limit themselves!!!!

        But……gov’t must use force and violence in order to exist…..so, forcing others to do things against their will makes those folks slaves!

        Maybe if a libertarian was limiting the slavery…..you know so long as our guy was in there……then that would be cool cause it’s our guy, and even though the very institution of gov’t requires violence in order to exist….we can still go on about how we support the NAP, freedom, and liberty……..while knowing gov’t is antithetical to those rights…….

        That is why folks advance from minarchy and embrace the principles of a libertarian anarchist ( believer in freedom and liberty, anarchist, etc ).

  28. Well, if only we had more socialism, the right people, and more money would the liberal ideas work.

    1. Look, we have all that. All that’s needed is the will to deal with assorted wreckers standing in the way of progress!

  29. Exactly. Let’s get them!!!!! If it weren’t for those pesky libertarians and freedom lovers, all that is right for people would be implemented already. People will be free when they are under our system and our rulers.

    About the getting them part……we need to make sure we tell the politician to gather their standing armies that are the police, national guard, and the military to crush these folks…….cause if folks like us die, then there will be no one to spread our liberal message. So we’ll stay behind and like, make sure the flyers are going out, and that the printers have ink and stuff……and like there’s paper……….and ooooh, ice cream after those folks come back from doing the crushing……cause they’ll be like all sweaty and stuff…….which means we need to stock up on water too! Oh my.

  30. “Let’s try to stick to the facts as it gets rolling.”

    The Progressive Theocracy, stick to the facts? What planet are you from?

  31. There you go again….bringing inconvenient facts into the argument mounted on feelings.
    Have you no shame!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.