Rand Paul

Brian Doherty in The New York Times On Rand Paul and the Need for Hardcore Libertarianism in Presidential Politics

|

I appear in this morning's New York Times discussing the extent and depth of how Rand Paul has argued as a libertarian as a presidential candidate, and why libertarians crave, and America needs, a more hardcore libertarian champion in presidential politics.

The conclusion:

Libertarianism's relevance to the problems that bedevil the Republican Party, and America, goes beyond spending. You can't solve our foreign policy problems until you understand that the military's purpose is to defend lives and property on the homeland — not fight international villainy. You can't solve the immigration problem unless you understand that people, like goods and services, should be allowed maximum freedom of movement. (Mr. Paul, like other Republicans, instead wants to strengthen the borders.) You can't make criminal justice truly just until you limit the reasons government fines and imprisons us to true crimes against persons or property, not minor "quality of life" infractions or life choices (like drug use) that the government simply disapproves of…..

Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure. That's precisely why we need a candidate who will articulate them. Who else will challenge both parties' complacent assumptions — and their shared devotion to ever-increasing spending on problems that exceed the proper scope of government? Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been as bad as Democrats in defining what government is for — what it can and can't rightly do.

Calling for some limits on government intrusion here, and some spending cuts there, isn't enough. America needs a political champion willing to stretch beyond the merely practical. It's a tricky position for anyone running for president to try to move the majority in your direction. But if liberty is your highest value, it's essential.

I first hipped New York Times readers to the libertarian wave in the GOP and Rand Paul's role in it back in February 2013.

NEXT: A response from Huwaida Arraf of the International Solidarity Movement

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. Funny how they just happen to have comments turned on for this article, but they don’t use disqus. CNN switched up to the same tactics after the 2014 election smack down

    It does seem to generate a more favorable echo chamber. BTW someone light the Derptologist signal, there’s already some quality material over there.

    1. On second though I believe this site has always had a proprietary commenting system. However it has always been that way(as has the NY Times) But Reason always has comments for every article, unless someone can remember a post that was too hot to let the Comentariot touch?

      1. There have been some:

        Reason and its commenters get sued

        Salty ham tears. Purported to be the most active reason thread ever.

        1. Here’s an archived version of the salty tears post.

          1. Who are those people? I don’t recognize any of the commentariat there.

            1. Poor vikingmoose.

              1. Wait – I forgot to turn on scripts for archive.org.

                There are a few names I recognize who didn’t show up before.

                1. An old commenter, a minion of the URKOBOLD. He got trapped in the Salty Ham Tears thread and never escaped.

      2. I believe this site has always had a proprietary commenting system.

        It is one of a tiny handful of political comments which are not monitored, across the entire political spectrum … thus dominated by cyber-bullies and thugs, a known risk on political sites for over 20 years now.

        Why Cato doesn’t allow comments? Nor libertarianism.org? Nor Mercatus?

    2. only 2 comments in and already we have this

      Matt Guest Washington, D. C. 45 minutes ago
      There is no “out-of-control spending” in Washington; to the contrary, the government does not spend enough, especially in a still-weak economy.

      1. Methinks Matt has a vested interest in pork (and not the good kind)

        1. Krugman came by to get the comments rolling…..

          1. Which one? Krug Prime, Weekend at Kruggies, or Replicant Krug?

            1. Sub-creatures! Krugman the Keynesian, Krugman the Destructor, Creative Destroyer, the Economist has come!

              1. Oh, that would be Krug Prime.

                1. lolol

                  1. There are no comments by Matt, but suckering the braindead wing of the Reason commentariat is as easy as debunking the Paulista Cult,

      2. Why these people think that taking money be force,skimming 25 percent off the top,then giving it out to favored parties with strings ‘creates wealth’is beyond me.

        1. Why these people think that taking money be force

          Brushing up on your Ebonics, I see, Adans?

          1. If this be treason, let’s make the most of it.

        2. Well, they also think that you can raise the level of water in your swimming pool by pumping it from the deep end to the shallow end.

          1. That is just foolish, because as anyone who has tried that knows, all that results in is the deep end getting shallower and the shallow end getting deeper, and if you let the pump go long enough your pool totally reverses.

            Then cats and dogs start living together and things get really out of hand.

      3. Larry Eisenberg
        is a trusted commenter New York City 28 minutes ago
        Will ineptitude precede the fall
        Of the “libertarian” Rand Paul,
        Liberty for the Wealthy,
        Wall Street and the stealthy,
        His arrogance doth appall

        Yours is more derpy, but this one got me. It’s a poem!

        1. Meh. Rhyming Paul and appall is cheating.

        2. Larry Eisenberg
          is a trusted commenter fucking moron.

          Fixt that

        3. The meter. It’s awful. It’s like he wasn’t even trying.

          1. Can’t I just like it without you guys pizzing all over it.

    3. Some of us hate Disqus.

  2. With friends like Doherty, who needs enemies?

  3. Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure.

    To be fair, progressive and conservative ideals sound ridiculous to many Americans.

  4. FTFComments: Cutting the budgets of those essential institutions, which protect public health and invest in science and technologies for the future, is nothing short of insanely dumb.

    Very well. Then cut the budgets of the FDA and Dept. of Ed., which do not.

  5. Geeze, I’m pretty sure we had one of those hardcore libertarian types last time around. But, I guess, he wasn’t cool enough or “with it” enough and he had a squeaky voice and stuff like that – just couldn’t quite get behind him, you know, because of all of that. Having principles and all, well that’s good and all, but my hipster, in crowd friends didn’t dig him and that was a deal breaker.

    1. If *only* we could get Rand to grow a beard!

    2. Having principles and all,

      (laughing) The same “principles” as Orval Faubus. George Wallace and the southern racists … all dumbfucks claiming the federal government has no role in defending constitutional rights!!! (OMG)

      To other bigots looking for any justification to deny equal rights to … anyone they hate.
      Government by thuggery.

  6. people, like goods and services

    Libertarians think Mexicans are a good to be used by big business!

    /NYT reader

  7. It is odd in how of that massive $3.8 trillion in federal spending Rand Paul does not talk about how much he would cut. Instead he adds a sizable bit to the military budget. And he is no better than Obama on drug freedom. He is not a very good libertarian candidate even in the GOP.

    Ron Paul was – but Doherty has to work with what he has.

    1. It is odd in how of that massive $3.8 trillion in federal spending Rand Paul does not talk about how much he would cut.

      Look here.

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..dget/print

    2. Back to outright lying again. Tell us the one about you and Barry personally fracing all of America again.

    3. “Instead he adds a sizable bit to the military budget.”

      With an accompanying cut of equal size to other federal agencies. Would most of us prefer a cut to DoD AND Education, HHS, etc.? Sure. He needed to tack for political reasons but at least he was able to do it in a way that allowed him to further highlight the idiocy of just increasing budgets on a credit card.

    4. Ron Paul was

      Yeah, we need more hateful bigots, lying about the constitution to their loyal (but hoplelessly naive) puppets

  8. Brian Doherty defending libertarianism is like Jesus Christ defending child rape.

    Doherty now agrees with me that Rand Paul is no libertarian. Doherty and Gillespie are the Ministry of Propaganda for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is Propaganda Minster for Orval Faubus, George Wallace and southern racists … but the statism is now anti-gay.

    In 1957, Orval Faubus used his ARMED state militia to block black registration at Little Rock’s Central High School. Eisenhower sent troops to use force, if necessary, to defend the equal rights of 9 kids.

    Faubus defended his defiance by claiming he was defending the state of Arkansas from an intrusive federal government seeking to impose the will of unelected judges.

    Ron Paul later used the SAME bullshit, in his whiny voice, to denounce “rogue judges” who overturned FEDERAL restrictions in DOMA. Ron even tried to ban gays from EVER challenging the constitutionality of DOMA — the worst attack on constitutional rights since FDR’s Japanese concentration camps … shamefully alibied by Doherty, Gillespie and “Reason”

    Now watch vicious attacks on … the truth … as faux libertarian puppets proudly initiate aggression. The militantly self-righteous True Believers. SEIG HEIL!

    They scream that states have powers which have never been delegated. “Constitutional conservatives” ignore the 9th and 14th Amendments. And Paulistas stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Orval Faubus and George Wallace, shamelessly. US History 101. DUH

    1. Re: Michael Hindered,

      DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo!

    2. By the way, imbecile, the fact that out of 100 people who lean libertarian only 9 call themselves “libertarian” does not mean a rejection of libertarianism.

      1. By the way, imbecile,

        (laughing hysterically

        the fact that out of 100 people who lean libertarian only 9 call themselves “libertarian” does not mean a rejection of libertarianism.

        (laughing harder) That’s why I always say “the libertarian LABEL is rejected by 91% of libertarians.” Emphasis added for TRUE imbeciles,

        It means a rejection of YOU and your anti-gummint screechers …. versus tens of thousands of pro-liberty libertarians who are elected and serve in public office, advancing liberty … instead of circle-jerking in an Ivory Tower of purists, convinced ,,, CONVINCED …. that we can achieve a free society by never electing anybody!

        So, ummm, when does your armed coup begin?

        imbecile

        He doesn’t know, does he?

    3. Michael, take the little pills like the nice nurse tells you. After a good long nap you’ll feel much better. Promise.

      1. Anybody else too fucking stupid to know the story of Orval Faubus and Central High School?

        1. /raises hand

          Could you please supply a 10 page report on that subject? You can start now and I will give you a week. Please don’t copy/paste from other articles and don’t simply link someone elses work.

          1. Anybody else too fucking stupid to know the story of Orval Faubus and Central High School?

            Could you please supply a 10 page report on that subject?

            Okay, we’ve got one who admits to being fuqing stupid. Any others?

            And never link to proof, which exposes Private FUQUP as a psychotic liar — linking to proof (aka someone else’s work) is dirty fighting against bellowing blowhards!!!
            Just BELIEVE! And never, ever, think for yourself.

  9. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  10. “Hardcore Libertarianism”

    I am pretty sure that involves chicks with dicks.

  11. Stupidest Comments in the NYT Competition – Begin!!

    My submission:

    “””We should greatly reduce immigration as that is the great driver of population growth, which is the greatest environmental threat. “

    1. “”We should greatly reduce immigration as that is the great driver of population growth, which is the greatest environmental threat. “

      You get 5 points for knowing the US has a NEGATIVE replacement birthrate, so immigration is the ONLY cause of population growth. The environmental stuff is just wacky.

      1. But it’s only local popul’n growth. It’s not like they’re coming from another planet.

        1. Yes, the United States is local
          And since there are no known attempts for the United States to “reduce immigration” from outer space … and the New York Times is an American publication, we can safely assume you don’t understand Gilmore’s bullshit quote, or don’t know Gilmore, since the quote is not from the New York Times! But we instinctively swallow even bullshit attributed to the “progs” at the Times, right?

          Meanwhile, the “libertarian wave” in the GOP peaked thirty years ago — when gays were defended instead of subjected to “Orval Faubus Federalism” by faux “constitutional conservatives” on their way to a “tent revival meeting.”

  12. As to borders, they need to be controlled for the same reason that some high-value property needs a deed or a title. If I can simply cross back and forth – steal on one side of the border and sell the stolen merchandise on the other (sort of like what happens with some Chinese or Vietnamese made goods?) it isn’t freedom or free trade. Or if I can kidnap and cross the border. Etc.

    Even Atlas Shrugged didn’t have open immigration into Galt’s Gulch.

    As to DoMA, a commenter above missed the punch-line. Ron Paul noted Marriage is a Religious institution so the 1st amendment (make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof) should cover it at the Federal level.

    Here’s where the two come together:

    States can be allowed to be somewhat evil as long as you can change states. Kansas is NOT New York. Both/either can create a (private!) marriage contract giving property rights, powers of attorney, etc. which then must be recognize across state borders. But they can set their own standards – IF ANY – as to what they recognize as a marriage or not.

    States ought to be free to recognize none or all marriages along a continuum from “none of the state’s business” to “only ‘traditional forms'” to “any group who registers as ‘married'”.

    1. States ought to be free to recognize none or all marriages along a continuum from “none of the state’s business” to “only ‘traditional forms'” to “any group who registers as ‘married'”.

      Fuck the constitution. The 9th amendment and 14th amendments have always been part of the gay agenda anyhow. For braindead libertarians, who swear allegiance to. Orval Faubus, George Wallace and the Ku Klux Klan. THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.