Rand Paul

Rand Paul vs. the Libertarians

Is libertarian-ish good enough?

|

James Hohmann at Politico last week quotes me and some other people publicly associated with libertarianism to discuss where Rand Paul the presidential candidate stands in libertarian terms. His central thesis is that Paul is, in his own self-framing, declaring himself at best (in libertarian terms) merely libertarian-ish.

Hohmann sums up where Rand differs from the more steadfastly libertarian Ron Paul well:

here's no talk from the Kentuckian about ending the Federal Reserve, no quoting Friedrich Hayek and no laments about how the U.S. deserves a share of blame for terrorism – all hallmarks of Ron Paul presidential campaign rallies. Doom-and-gloom has been replaced by sunny optimism; the language of revolution has been supplanted by something that sounds a lot more incremental and a lot less edgy.

The Federal Reserve reads less vital as an issue in a time a few years past what legitimately read as an economic crisis to which they could be convincingly blamed. Talking of Austrian economists and American foreign policy crimes just doesn't sell to a mass audience, Rand Paul's campaign doubtless believes.

Daily Beast

Libertarian Party politicians quoted in Hohmann's article understandably push back against this GOP guy edging on their turf, like Gary Johnson the L.P.'s 2012 and could-be 2016 candidate for president, or in the case of 2008 L.P. presidential candidate and former Republican congressman Bob Barr, recognize that libertarian ideas might do a lot better in politics not weighed down with a third party label.

My quotes Hohmann used, which I'll present without further comment:

"The balanced budget stuff goes back to the '80s, and the term limits stuff was big in the '90s," said Brian Doherty, a senior editor at the libertarian magazine Reason. "None of that's fresh. None of that's a new vision … It's not really distinctly libertarian."

Doherty, author of the book "Ron Paul's Revolution," said Rand is determined to avoid a repeat of his problematic 2010 appearance on Rachel Maddow's show, during which he suggested that portions of the Civil Rights Act might be unconstitutional because they restricted the freedom of segregationist business owners.

Doherty said Rand, unlike his father, does not want to get burdened with theoretical debates about what happens when his philosophy is applied in full. "He doesn't want moments like that," the editor said. "I think that's the root of the prickliness…If you're a typical party hack of whatever sort, everyone understands you're just a politician … No one expects intellectual coherence from you."

I'll expand a bit on that last point, which might not be fully coherent as quoted: I believe that Rand Paul is just libertarian-ish enough, and came up from the movement as Son of Paul enough, that he has the libertarian's frustration with a world in which nearly everyone he meets rejects some of his core guiding principles and beliefs about important political matters, a frustration that comes out especially when challenged in a way a "normal politician" never is about the roots or implications of the philosophy that people dimly note you have. No one expects a normal politician to have principles that have implications or roots. They just have a set of attitudes that are roughly associated with their party coalition.

Libertarian-ish can feel great to a libertarian not used to seeing any respect or regard for his or her ideas in national politics. But it can also be aggravating—especially to the extent that a major candidate is saddled with the label and any given libertarian is asked/expected to justify or explain his every pronouncement. But that's a petty cavil about social and conversational awkwardness, while what a libertarian-ish politician could accomplish as president could be something actually important.

Nick Gillespie has recently written here about Paul's superiority compared to major party alternatives both on criminal justice and the drug war and overall.

NEXT: Chris Christie: I'd Crack Down on Legal Weed in Colorado, Washington as President

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. I’m gonna bet that if RP wants the GOP nomination, he’s going to thread a path back and forth to do so. It’s an odds-on bet that a libertarian acceptable to the H&R commenters would never get nominated by either party.
    Assuming he gets the nomination, would he get my vote? Who cares? I live in CA; I’d have to be able to vote 50 times or more to even hope my vote counted. The rest of you can take your choices. I’ll vote tax issues and register the vote for libertarians where I can find them and hope the less statist candidate wins the office.

  2. declaring himself at best (in libertarian terms) merely libertarian-ish.

    And Barack Hussein Obama II ran as being socialist-ish?

    Ya gotta get elected. I assume the things he said years ago were actually much closer to his true beliefs than anything he says from here on out.

    1. Ya gotta get elected. I assume the things he said years ago were actually much closer to his true beliefs than anything he says from here on out.

      So you cravenly admit, again, that your perverted version of libertarianism has no fucking clue on how to deal with the issues that Americans care most about … also nothing on the coming fiscal meltdown. I agree.

      But if somebody else fixes everything … with magic? … THEN we can govern what remains! GO TRIBE LIB!!!

      Might this be why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians? (Cato)

      1. Might this be why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians? (Cato)

        WHAT??? WHY HAS NOBODY SAID THIS BEFORE??!!

        1. Shame. And who can blame them?

          Readers note that BrianD could not list a single libertarian proposal for what voters care most about, jobs and the economy, also nothing for the coming financial meltdown.

          The defense rests

          1. What bothers me when people screech about impending disasters they tend to ignore the policies that created the problem. Government involvement in the economy, funneling money towards voters or cronies, generates inefficiencies in the economy. When these inefficiencies are supported by the force of government and the artificial inflation of the dollar, they build to bubbles that government types scream about having to take drastic control of the economy to avoid. These people create the problem, then use it to take more control.

            Libertarian economics actually trusts free markets and individuals to invest their money and time wisely while avoiding government interventions. Take some time to read some Friedman or Mises, they explain basic economics better than I could, but in short government interventions into the economy generates inefficiencies that cost the economy jobs and allows the framework for meltdowns to occur.

            Flat tax is one libertarian proposal that would instantly improve millions of lives, particularly today.

            1. What bothers me when people screech about impending disasters they tend to ignore the policies that created the problem.

              Aw geez, more boring theory, followed by a dumbfuck policy.

              Flat tax is one libertarian proposal that would instantly improve millions of lives, particularly today.

              (laughing) The wealthy subsidize about 35% of the entire core middle class share of the personal income tax … on reported income … plus another $ triilion plus in tax exemptions restricted to the middle class.

              Have you never wondered why the same people who say the wealthy pay a disproportionately HIGH share of the income tax …. those same people also support a flat tax (or fair tax)! Who will pay the hundreds of billions now taken from the rich? Venezuelans?

              Can you see why the United States ranks 38th among the major economies in MATH?

              1. We wouldn’t need to replace lost tax dollars IF we down-size government! Our federal government is at least 3 times the size needed! There are thousands of wasteful departments and programs that could be cut and we as a nation would be better for it!

            2. Raed an bouk? Aer yu carzy?

  3. “Libertarian-ish can feel great to a libertarian not used to seeing any respect or regard for his or her ideas in national politics.”

    And that’s even assuming he’s not lying. In fact, I think the better bet is that he’s VERY libertarian, a highly intelligent son widely read of libertarianism and trained from an early age at his father’s side… more libertarian than he will EVER admit publicly. If elected, he’ll simply use conservative rhetoric to accomplish libertarian things.

    1. If elected, he’ll simply use conservative rhetoric to accomplish libertarian things.

      Like continuing to rape the constitution and shamelessly pander to the Christian Taliban?

      1. Please point out to me where this “Christian” Taliban are beheading/stoning/burning/mutilating sinniers/gays and infidels.

        1. Please point out to me where this “Christian” Taliban are beheading/stoning/burning/mutilating sinniers/gays and infidels.

          LAME.
          1) The phrase refers to a state theocracy … and why our founders opposed one so strongly.

          2) Consider “Christian” as a modifier to differentiate from the Muslim Taliban

          Since you defend pandering to the Christian Taliban (aka extreme socons), then I assume you want government power to impose your values on everyone by force … thus opposing the entire founding concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. When you come for me, be heavily armed.

          P.S. Only the Bible orders followers to kill all the infidels. (Deut 13)
          In the Quran it’s only if the infidels attack the temple, and the killing must stop once they have been driven away from assaulting the temple. See, the Quran preaches violence ONLY in self-defense, and very narrowly, only until the aggression is repelled or otherwise stops … a concept condemned by Christ.

  4. Rand is short and has a soft voice. These are fatal handicaps in a presidential race. It’s nice to dream dreams, though.

    1. You know who else ran for office despite being short and having a soft voice?

      1. Gary Coleman?

        -jcr

      2. Napoleon?

      3. Tyrion Lannister?

      4. Martin van Buren?

    2. Hillary is old, frumpy, brutal to look at, and about as honest as a stripper wotking a fat 50 year old traveling sales man. Rand will beat her uglier than she already is.

  5. Is libertarian-ish good enough?

    No.

    See Betteridge’s law of headlines

    But really, what would I know about being Libertarian?

  6. Rand Paul isn’t running for the Libertarian nomination; he’s running for the Republican nomination.

    I don’t need Rand Paul to explain himself, but the fact is that if the voters were libertarian, Rand Paul could be as publicly libertarian as he wants to be.

    The fact is that Rand Paul is more than libertarianish, but the voters aren’t.

    So, if the voters won’t go all the way, then we have to take what we can get from them.

    And the fact is that if they vote Rand Paul into the White House, it’ll be the best thing that’s happened to libertarianism since the fall of communism.

    …regardless of whether Rand Paul is more than just libertarianish.

    P.S. Which of his positions is indefensible from a small state, libertarian perspective?

    1. P.S. Which of his positions is indefensible from a small state, libertarian perspective?

      Abortion and marriage equality. duh. That’s just the major ones.
      When libertarians make excuses for “tent revivals” and constitutional rights are “the moral crisis of our time” … it’s a time for shame.

      Then again, Ron Paul tried to deny homosexuals ANY legal defense of their fundamental rights, using the same bullshit federalism that Orval Faubus cited in 1957, making gays the first second-class citizens since the 1950s.

      1. Rand Paul went from supporting a constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage in 2010 to thinking the states should handle it, even if he personally is against it. He opposes federal funding of abortions and is generally pro-life. I’ve seen people who call themselves libertarian argue both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice issue, but opposing federal funding seems pretty ‘small state’ to me.

        He’s got my vote no matter what a dipshit like you says.

        1. so you are a Republican who thinks they are better than other Republicans by saying something stupid like: I am a “Libertarian Republican”. Talk about an oxymoron.

          1. so you are a Republican who thinks they are better than other Republicans by saying something stupid like: I am a “Libertarian Republican”. Talk about an oxymoron.

            Talk about a moron. This one is so ignorant and manipulated that he can’t even tell a defense of libertarian values. (See Orwell’s 1984)

            Or that I’ve been elected twice to public office, founded and won a local tax revolt, and am listed in the history of the Libertarian Party.

            He’s even worse than Ron Paul. Spits at people who call themselves libertarian Republicans for not being pure enough. (gasp) One more reason that Cato found the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of even libertarians

            Also too fucking stupid to know how Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, Jack Kemp and Bill Buckley (among others) were libertarian Republicans. Reagan said – in a Reason interview — “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”

            Or how the libertarian party and movement evolved from the Goldwater Presidential campaign.

            Or how Reagan and Goldwater were aggressively defending gays in the 1970s, two decades before Clinton signed both DOMA and DADT … three decades before Ron Paul supported DOMA and tried to strip homosexuals of defending their constitutional rights.

            And the movement once seemed destined to do something beyond slogans and soundbites. (See Orwell’s 1984)

            Just another manipulated puppet ….

        2. When were states ever delegated any power to deny or abridge fundamental human rights? This treason, from Ron and Rand Paul assumes we have NO constitutional defense from abusive acts by state legislatures. Anyone else believe the founders were so fucking stupid?

          Brian D, one of the suckers who knows fucking nothing about the costitution, including the 9th and 14th amendments. He stands with Ron and Rand Paul, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, David Duke and a long line of southern racists. States Rights ain’t Federalism.

          And federal funding of abortion has been illegal since 1976. Decliving voters is simple, the voters who are ignorant of the facts.

          No reply to Ron Paul’s shameful action trying to forbid homosexuals a defense of their constitutional rights. The constitution allows Congress to change or reduce the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Anyone else naive enough to believe the founders intended that to be used for a single law and one group of people. Anyone else never hear about the Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws. Constitutional conservative? (lol)

      2. If gay marriage and abortion are your big things, the progressives have had you covered for 40 years.

        1. “If gay marriage and abortion are your big things, the progressives have had you covered for 40 years.”

          ^^^ This

        2. If gay marriage and abortion are your big things, the progressives have had you covered for 40 years.

          (laughing) I’m for equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights, marched for civil rights and against Vietnam … and open bigotry like yours.

          (yawn) Progs are fucking clueless about individual rights. And thanks for so lame a defense of Rand Paul.

      3. HIHNFECTED

      4. Those two “problems” are what you consider to be the “major ones” this country faces? Really?

        Momma didn’t “drop” you on your head…..that woman threw you on the ground several times and then stomped your friggin brains out!!!

        1. Those two “problems” are what you consider to be the “major ones” this country faces? Really?

          You’re fucking stupid enough to say that in public? Illiterate?

          Momma didn’t “drop” you on your head…..that woman threw you on the ground several times and then stomped your friggin brains out!!!

          This is how the Paulista Cult has infected the movement.

      5. If there ever has been a survey to know how many people are libertarian but don’t self-describe as such…

        1. Chumby
          If there ever has been a survey to know how many people are libertarian but don’t self-describe as such…

          (laughing) Sorry, but laughing at Chumby is so easy.

          Umm, the survey was done by top pollster Zogby, as commissioned by Cato

          http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

          In our Zogby survey we found that only 9 percent of voters with libertarian views identify themselves that way. Voters we identified as libertarian identified themselves this way:

          … “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?”

          The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

          Stay locked away in your cocoon, just another manipulated puppet. This is for the adults in the room.

    2. His vote yesterday for the doc fix?

      1. I will probably still vote for him, but if I run into him here in town, he is gonna hear about it from me.

      2. His vote yesterday for the doc fix?

        I think so. He wasn’t listed in the WS Journal as one of the handful of Republicans who opposed it.

  7. I think you are right, Ken, most voters not libertarian, they are too comfortable in their team cocoons.

    I grew up in a blue collar household in the 60’s when team blue actually gave a fuck about the middle class and team red was the enemy. I was fascinated by Buckley as I got older, out of he box ideas. Went through my leftoid college phase, bought my leftoid gf in college the appropriate tomes.

    As life went I dealt with government hacks in the Forest Service (to be fair I dealt with some great FS people as well, but they left in droves in the 90’s when the greens took the agency over) and other incompetents in government. Also watched team blue turn into the party of “free shit”. I was ok with the first Clinton because he was smart enough to do shit like welfare reform. I realized by then that handouts had left the underclass with very little hope of bettering themselves.

    My many (6) siblings have done pretty well but cling to the 40 year old values and still think team blue gives a shit about actual taxpayers and the debt we have. Things are ok so don’t ask questions.

    I left that plantation around 10 years ago and found this place which helped explain my misgivings. I’m not an optomist that this will change in my lifetime (I’m 59), I am hopeful that younger kids will realize how they are fucked and try to point it out when I interact with them. They don’t get it yet, but if Rand Paul can bring this issue to the front burner it’s a win for freedom.

    1. I think you are right, Ken, most voters not libertarian, they are too comfortable in their team cocoons.

      … as you ignore being submerged in your own tribal cocoon.

      1. HIHNANE

      2. Hihnsight never being 20-20.

        1. Chumby
          Hihnsight never being 20-20.

          That’s hysterical, considering your monumental hindsight fuckup here:
          https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5231186

          1. Mike
            In regard to the poll, I was trolling you. Bigtime. And as expected you fell for it. Thanks for the chuckle.

  8. So I hope Rand Paul can at least get the debate going, with all the statist fucks o..ut there, that’s a good thing to me.

  9. Rand Paul vs. the Libertarians.

    I really hope Rand kicks the libertarians in the nuts and eventually issue an executive order criminalizing weed.

    “Without your precious drugs…….. you are NOTHING”

    In all seriousness though, I would love to see Rand debate the fringe Ron Paul crowd (like that pizza delivery man), if only to separate himself from the more “confederate” wing of the libertarian side and highlight libertarian agendas that the public could also support.

    1. In all seriousness though, I would love to see Rand debate the fringe Ron Paul crowd (like that pizza delivery man), if only to separate himself from the more “confederate” wing of the libertarian side and highlight libertarian agendas that the public could also support.

      (laughing hysterically) Like calling for “tent revivals” to fight the menacing “moral crisis of our day” … equal rights?

  10. We can always count on Gillespie and Doherty to act as Ron/Rand Paul’s Ministers of Propaganda.

    It’s the libertarian moment thing, even though libertarianism has gained zero ground in the past 40 years. As surveyed by Cato, a majority of Americans are are still Nolan Chart libertarians, but 91% of those reject the libertarian label.

    So essentially, Reason reports to the movement libertarians (5.3% of Americans) what has been achieved by the Nolan Chart Libertarians (59%) on gay equality, school choice, drug legalization and tolerance in general … while moment libertarians stay locked in an Ivory Tower, masturbating, while discussing Austrian Economics and libertopia (a NON-free society).

    And we ignore our 40 year majority to chase millennials and independants, both of which despise extreme social conservatives, but are larger (and more profitable) than movement libertarians.

    Is the movement a cult yet? Orwellian Newspeak? Or perhaps a mix of both?
    Is it still tribal to deny libertarian tribalism?

    1. Austrian Economics and libertopia (a NON-free society).

      Austrian economics promotes a non-free society?

      You clearly haven’t read the works of many Austrian economists.

      1. Austrian Economics and libertopia (a NON-free society).

        Austrian economics promotes a non-free society?

        Not what I said. I used bold here to help you figure it out,

        You clearly haven’t read the works of many Austrian economists.

        Who read them to you?

    2. BAKE ME MY GODDAMN PIZZA= tolerance in general.

      HIHNSANE IN THE MEMBRANE

    3. Mary, you still don’t say what the true Libertarian alternative is. Gary Johnson? Whoever the LP puts up for President, even if his last name is “Barr”?

      I love this sock. Attempting to translate it’s ramblings is like code breaking, or something. Reminds me of Hercule.

    4. So how has that frontal lobotomy worked out for ya? Still drooling I see…..

    5. Do you have any understanding of the liberal philosophy beyond the “libertopia/anti-gummint” sound bites that you throw around? Of course liberals reject labels; our political/economic philosophy is predicated on a system of voluntary interaction amongst individuals and resists the tendency to group people for convenience/slanders sake. In fact, von Mises does a fine job describing how defining economics in terms of groups, in lieu of a system of interacting individuals, leads to incorrect conclusions and a reduced efficacy of the marginal utility of the division of labor.
      No liberal would deny any other person their natural rights (without due process), or select any group to have superior rights to another. So just because a liberal will not grant special rights to any “protected class”, do not confuse that with attempting to deny any person their natural and inalienable rights.
      I for one believe that it is more important which direction we are going than where we are currently at. So I welcome Rand Paul and his libertarian-ish campaign. Now will I vote for him?.I have yet to decide? I do grow tired of voting for the LP in what always has been a futile exercise of principles. I just wish (crosses fingers) that Rand is being savvy enough to get elected, but maintaining his inner Ron in the hopes of effecting real liberal change. Although he is a politician and I could well be setting myself up for a giant nut punch.

      1. Do you have any understanding of the liberal philosophy beyond the “libertopia/anti-gummint” sound bites that you throw around?

        When you don’t even know the difference between liberal and classical liberal

        Of course liberals reject labels;

        (lol)Imagine this babbling to voters:

        our political/economic philosophy is predicated on a system of voluntary interaction amongst individuals and resists the tendency to group people for convenience/slanders sake. In fact, von Mises does a fine job describing how defining economics in terms of groups, in lieu of a system of interacting individuals, leads to incorrect conclusions and a reduced efficacy of the marginal utility of the division of labor.
        No liberal would deny any other person their natural rights (without due process), or select any group to have superior rights to another. So just because a liberal will not grant special rights to any “protected class”, do not confuse that with attempting to deny any person their natural and inalienable rights.

        Thanks for SHOWING why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians.
        And if you also never read the link below, you’ll never know how you just made a fool of yourself:
        https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..nt_5231186

        1. MH, of course I understand that the term “liberal” has been coopted by progressives and socialists. I refuse to hand it over; therefore I use the word in its original meaning, unapologetically. If by babbling you mean a cogent argument, on a Reason thread, well I can’t help you there. The message is packaged for the audience. My statement that individuals who follow a philosophy of liberalism tend not to choose labels but instead resist being grouped and classified is self-evident. Having to cite a survey which agrees with this is redundant redundant.
          Chill, your hubris only encourages emoting and unreasonableness in lieu of discourse. Principles are great but don’t put food on the table. Libertarian-ish is great when the alternative is more tyranny.

    6. So, do you have a point that you’re trying to make?

  11. “Libertarian-ish can feel great to a libertarian not used to seeing any respect or regard for his or her ideas in national politics.”

    Blame everyone else for the moral and intellectual failure of “anti-gummint” libertarianism … which has now reached the inevitable end of their road.

    1. How long until your next stroke?

    2. HIHNSIDIOUS

      1. HIHNBECILE

  12. Isn’t it just about getting the votes?
    Having an ideology is nice and stuff, but if the majority of the country doesn’t share it, you’re out in the cold.
    I think RP is simply lying to get the votes. Which, in fact, all of the candidates are doing. I think RP is very Libertarian, but for the sake of getting the votes chooses to be libertarian-ish.
    Just simple strategy.

    1. I think RP is simply lying to get the votes.

      You seem remarkably confident that he’s lying to others, not lying to you.

      1. Maybe he is but given that his actual record, you know the thing that actually matters, while in the Senate is far, far better than most GOPers or Dems…he’s got my vote.

  13. It’s one thing to oppose unpopular positions like legalizing prostitution or ending the FDA. It’s another thing to oppose the issues we’re finally winning on, like gay marriage. If we don’t get ahead of things, then social democrats will, and gays will receive special treatment rather than equality.

    Anyway, the way we can figure out what a Rand presidency will be like, all you have to do is look at who his advisers are and who his appointees will be for cabinet and other important posts.

  14. Here’s the thing. Rand Paul is libertarianish. He’s not a full hard-core libertarian. And full hard-core libertarians should pray to their personal God he gets elected.

    Why?

    Well, it’s actually quite simple. Libertarianism works. Even libertarianishism works. If Rand Paul gets elected and governs in a libertarianish manner, we’re going to see terrific economic growth, relative peace, and a significant improvement in the tranquility and civility of our domestic affairs.

    Guess what, for huge swaths of the country, that’s going to change the way they think about libertarianism. All of a sudden, libertarianism isn’t going to be The Road Warrior with Monocles, but that nice period when everyone was doing well and minded their own business.

    What world do you think your One True Libertarian Hope is going to get elected in? That one or the one we have now?

  15. Rand Paul’s “libertarian-ish” persona is nothing more than a carefully executed political strategy designed to fool neocons and evangelicals into voting for somebody who once in office is going to utterly torpedo their entire idiotic and destructive agenda. Considering how many times they have put up candidates intended to fool the rest of us, it’s about time that we returned the favor. I have no remorse, regret, or shame about it at all. Let’s destroy the b-tards.

    1. ^This

      In other news:
      Beer and BBQ at my place!

  16. The answer is an obvious yes. For one thing Rand is saying what he needs to say to get elected. It is like when Obama talks about being a big fan of the markets. People who are paying attention know he isn’t a supporter of free markets. Same thing with Rand. He will say the right things so he doesn’t get raked over the coals for his beliefs. Remember his gaffe the night he won the Republican senatorial primary in KY. He explained a very reasonable, libertarian position concerning the Civil Rights Act, property rights, and freedom of association, and got nailed by that disgusting Stalinist Maddow. He also spent a lot of time watching his father waste his efforts defending reasonable positions and being sidetracked with that. We have all thought wouldn’t it be nice to have a candidate who agreed with us, but who was also savvy enough to avoid such minefields. Here he is folks. Get behind the guy. He is a libertarian plain and simple, but he also knows how to say what needs to be said to gain support with a broader audience. This is how you win. Do you want to win? I do.

    1. +1 Libertarians need to come to terms that there will be no John Galt Speech moment.

  17. I fail to see how Rand isn’t libertarian. Looking at his positions I see a lot of small government/mind your business ideas.

    Abortion? Lots of libertarians are pro life. Foreign policy? He never claimed to be a strict non interventionist. He claimed to be a realist, which is also a view shared by many libertarians. Gay marriage? Immigration? Look at the arguments libertarians have on this very site about those issues. Fuck this purity test bullshit.

    1. “Fuck this purity test bullshit.”

      Word

  18. Rand Paul, like his dad, is a perfect infiltrator to have voting within the Republican party as member of the Upper House of Congress. Other than wanting men with guns to so coerce doctors as to force pregnant women to reproduce against their will, the Pauls’ voting records stand comparatively impeccable. When lynch mobs attacked nuclear power, Ron Paul disarmed them somewhat. And now that the much larger Prohibition and Ku Klux wings of the GOP are running a militarized shooting war on African-Americans and hippies, Rand Paul can block them in the Senate instead of embarrassing our own candidates by any “right-wing” association with his political party.
    By making the GOP lose–rather than supporting their outliers–we leave them no choice other than to quit jailing and murdering Americans for no good reason. The LP also sets a good example for Democrats to learn from.

  19. People who think he is a closet libertarian are going to be disappointed. There is almost no doubt that he is tacking* into the conservative primary winds and that he is more libertarian (or less conservative, at least) than he sounds right now, but we are probably talking about the margins of his philosophy.

    Having said that, libertarians who don’t want to actively support him should at least avoid sabotaging him. He’s more than just the lesser of two evils, he is actually tolerable (at worst) from a libertarian perspective on nearly ever issue I’ve heard him speak about. At best, he is, practically speaking (i.e., what can be realistically accomplished), nearly indistinguishable from libertarians on some key areas that we might actually be able to make real progress on within the next 5 years.

    Or, to be more concise: fuck off Michael Hihn.

    * Not actually a sailor.

    1. Having said that, libertarians who don’t want to actively support him should at least avoid sabotaging him.

      It’s called defending liberty. When he finally gets nailed as sucking up shamelessly to the extreme socons, his label, even an “ish” could bring down the entire movement. Especially the immensely bigoted view of the constitution by him and his dad … along with Orval Faubus, George Wallace, David Duke and the other phony federalists.

      1. What have I got to lose? I’ve been disappointed with every President in my lifetime.

  20. In the GOP primary I’ll promote the candidate I feel is most likely to pursue limits on government growth. In the general election I’ll vote for no presidential candidate unless I can defend them by my principles.

    That means Rand cannot get my general election vote for two main reasons.
    Personhood, and pro war. Of course there are other reasons but these two are each, individually, show stoppers.

    1. I like your thinking. If everyone did that we would slowly get better choices in the general

      Personally, I think we NEED Rand in the Senate, where he’s learning how to form bipartisan coalitions to advance liberty as best we can, today. Nobody has done that since Ted Kennedy, so Rand could become a legend for liberty .. in the Senate.

      1. So, the King of the True Libertarians wants Rand to be more like Ted Kennedy?

        The mask slips, Mary.

      2. Ted Kennedy!?! You are comparing the means, not the ends, yes?

  21. Politics. How does it it work?

  22. while what a libertarian-ish politician could accomplish as president could be something actually important.

    You mean, disappoint the fuck out of us by doing a bunch of stuff that a real libertarian wouldn’t do, leading more libertarians to become anarchists?

    Sounds at least somewhat important, though probably not what you meant.

  23. In fact, I think the better bet is that he’s VERY libertarian, a highly intelligent son widely read of libertarianism and trained from an early age at his father’s side… more libertarian than he will EVER admit publicly. If elected, he’ll simply use conservative rhetoric to accomplish libertarian things.

    You sound like all the progs who had high hopes for Obama, and then found out they had elected a warmongering neocon who doesn’t respect civil rights.

    Politicians disappoint. That is what they do.

    1. He has advanced there agenda in other areas. We’re tgat mu h closer to single payer which was a top 5 for progs. Do you think if the progs could go back in time and vote for someone else they would? Hell, he was reelected? No one ever voted for a politician except maybe their moms, they vote against the one they hate the most.

      1. Even if it is just bullshit rhetoric, if libertarian rhetoric can win an election, that is to me at least preferable to every candidate trying to out neocon each other to get elected. I hate politicians pretty much without exception but I’ll be at the polls and will flip the lever for someone and it ain’t gonna be Hillary.

  24. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  25. Paul is certainly better than what we have been getting. He may well just be taking what he thinks he can actually get rather than what he really wants.

  26. Rand Paul is libertarian-ish-ish, at best. Can we get over this obsession and maybe spend some energy getting Gary Johnson into an actual Presidential debate, or something/

  27. Rand Paul is libertarian-ish-ish, at best. Can we get over this obsession and maybe spend some energy getting Gary Johnson into an actual Presidential debate, or something/

  28. 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

  29. rand paul is trying to move the republican party towards libertarian principles which in turn will open more voters minds to becoming more libertarian. unfortunately this change is slow by nature so only so much can be done at a time, especially with all the misinformation and lies pushed by the media and the democrat/republican party. the good thing is that the libertarian party is growing while the democrat/republican party is shrinking. libertarian principles are also gaining i popularity while democrat/republican/conservative principles are shrinking.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.