MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul Will Endorse Donald Trump, the Least Libertarian GOP Nominee in Decades

'I've always said I will endorse the nominee," said Rand Paul.

PaulScreenshot via Stephen ColbertSen. Rand Paul isn't joining the #NeverTrump bandwagon. In a recent interview, he reminded radio host Leland Conway that he plans to endorse the Republican Party's presidential nominee, no matter who it is. 

"You know, I've always said I will endorse the nominee," said Paul. "I think it's almost a patriotic duty of anyone in Kentucky to oppose the Clintons, because I think they're rotten to the core, I think they're dishonest people, and ultimately I think we have to be concerned with what's best for Kentucky." 

Paul cited Clinton's recent comments about eliminating coal jobs as reason enough for Kentucky voters to oppose her. 

The libertarian-leaning Republican isn't wrong about Clinton's awfulness. But Trump—a thin-skinned lunatic who peddles conspiracy theories, encourages violence and censorship, prefers big government, and loathes the free market—is just as bad, and arguably much worse, including and especially from a libertarian perspective. 

There is virtually no issue where Trump's views align with libertarianism (his continued support for eminent domain, a policy that virtually no one else in the GOP or libertarian movement supports, is perhaps the best example of this). And while it's true that some conservatives can be counted on to advance libertarian positions on a handful of issues, this doesn't apply to Trump, because he isn't even a conservative. He's a member of the authoritarian populist right—a segment of the population that shares nothing in common with libertarianism. 

Paul knows all this, of course. To his credit, he was one of the first Republican presidential candidates to stand up to Trump on the debate stage. (Trump, demonstrating his remarkable lack of self-awareness, responded by mocking Paul's hair.) I presume that at this point, Paul thinks it's best for his political future if he doesn't burn any additional bridges with Trump people. 

He may wish to reconsider that, however. A whole host of influential, thoughtful Republicans are refusing to support Trump. Paul Ryan has declined to back Trump (at least "for now," he said). Mitt Romney will not endorse Trump. National Review writers are openly considering voting for likely Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Republican strategist Mary Matalin has officially switched her party identification to Libertarian. 

Given that conservatives and Republicans can't bring themselves to vote for Trump, it would be a little bizarre for the nation's most well-known libertarian-leaning Republican politician to endorse the least libertarian GOP nominee since Richard Nixon. 

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Colbert

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.

On select articles, Reason is testing a new comment promotion feature developed by SolidOpinion. Commenters can purchase points and bid to promote their comments and/or the comments of others. Winning comments are displayed at the top of the comment thread for each article, and are identified as “promoted comments.” Point purchases and bidding are handled SolidOpinion. Please send any questions and feedback to promoted-comments@reason.com.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    At least he's doing it for the right reason?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    He is keeping his original promise to support the eventual nominee. So there's that.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    An ill-advised promise. Shows poor judgment or a lack of foresight.

  • WTF||

    Seriously though, at that time who would have thought that Trump would actually end up winning?

  • db||

    Maybe, but how could Paul expect anyone to take any of his promises seriously if he reneged on this one so publicly?

  • tommhan||

    Or maybe just try to save the Constitution from Hillary since we all know she will pick a Supreme Court Justice that will allow her to do so. Some things are more important than your libertarian views and the biggest one is the Supreme Court.

  • Suicidy||

    Not in this case. Trump might not be horrible. But we know for a fact that a Cankles presidency shall bring with it a thousand years of darkness. It would like in Highlander, if the Kurgen was the last immortal and received the Prize. But with cankles.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    I'm not convinced Trump is less libertarian than Bush II.

    Other than a vague hatred of East Asians which goes back decades, Trump has no actual political ideology. Who's less libertarian - someone with no ideology or someone with an ideology that is actively authoritarian?

  • The Grinch||

    It's the battle of someone we know will be absolutely terrible vs someone who only might be absolutely terrible. At least Trump's agenda would be actively opposed. Clinton would have the tacit approval of the press and would steamroll the spineless Republicans into submission in short order.

  • ||

    At least Trump's agenda would be actively opposed. Clinton would have the tacit approval of the press and would steamroll the spineless Republicans into submission in short order.

    I think this is the single best (and maybe only) argument in favor of Trump.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Also, we will make more incest jokes, so there is that.

  • Spiny Norman||

    Trump has already steamrolled the spineless Republicans into submission.

  • RoninX||

    Unless the Dems take the House, the opposite is true. The House GOP will absolutely refuse to go along with anything Hillary proposes, but they will roll over for Trump.

  • Chrissycrunch||

    That's a unique argument. I rarely hear those. Good point.

  • Rose Tullis||

    "If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

    Rand disappoints.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Clinton and the media wouldn't "steamroll the spineless Republicans into submission" because they are just pretending to not like more government. They are all for letting Democrats increase the power of government. And by "they" I mean the RINOs that dominate the GOP ranks. There are actually about 25% of them who actually believe in limited government, and vote that way as well.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Meh. Eff Rand. He stopped being interesting a long time ago. I am more concerned about this potential influx of neocons into the LP. That's the last thing the LP needs. I suppose there is a small chance that the non-interventionist ideology of the LP will rob off on them, but I won't hold my breath.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    *rub off

  • Citizen X||

    No, "rob" is the correct verb to use when talking about actions pertaining to neoconservatism.

  • John||

    Have fun with them. The Never Trump crowd are mostly Libertarians who hate pot and like nation building but are too retarded to understand why that is a problem. As self defeating as the Libertarian party often is, I actually feel a little sorry for it if it gets stuck with the Never Trump refugees.

  • tarran||

    are mostly Libertarians who hate pot and like nation

    You keep using that whord. I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • John||

    I do know. The problem is they don't know. Its not that they are Libertarians. Libertarians let their principles make them stupid. These people have no principles and are stupid to begin with. If they were not stupid and had any principles or understood the rudimentary ones they have, they would be Libertarians.

    They are sort of a strange cadet branch of Libertarianism. The short bus if you will.

  • Zeb||

    Libertarians let their principles make them stupid.

    I don't know about "stupid". Stubborn, pig-headed, unrealistic, sure.

  • John||

    They let their principles make them stupid because they use them as an excuse to stop thinking. No set of principles no matter how noble explain everything or offer the right answer in every situation. The categorical imperative doesn't work. Life isn't that simple. Libertarians missed that memo.

  • Zeb||

    I think "cynicism" would be a better word to describe that than "stupidity" in most cases.

  • Citizen X||

    No set of principles no matter how noble explain everything or offer the right answer in every situation.

    This is, almost verbatim, my understanding of what libertarianism is - the knowledge that i don't have the answer to everybody else's problems, and nobody else does either, and that therefore the best possible society is one in which everyone cooperates voluntarily when they deem it necessary and leaves everyone else alone otherwise.

  • John||

    Citizen X, you just stated a bunch of principles. And they are nice. I like them. I really do. Sadly, however, they do not offer the answer to every societal problem. Not everyone is like us. Some people are assholes and don't want to cooperate. That is when things get hard and when Libertarianism starts to break down. do you live by your principles and let such people run amuck and wipe out your free society or do you violate your principles and stop them?

    I am not saying there is a right answer but whatever the answer, your principles themselves are not going to give it to you.

  • Mustang||

    Sadly, however, they do not offer the answer to every societal problem.

    Libertarianism isn't supposed to answer every societal problem. That's the point. It provides a foundation from which to build an answer, but it's not an answer in and of itself.

    You keep looking for answers, but if you have no principles to guide you towards them, you just get a bunch of fluff or something that changes with the prevailing sentiment (i.e. not an answer).

    You talk about the fact that not everyone wants to live like us...well, that's fine. They don't have to and I don't care if they do or don't. If they encroach on my liberty, I have the option of self-defense. It doesn't break down at all. It's not a violation of the general principle to do no harm except when necessary in an act of self-defense.

    That principle gives me pretty much every answer I need.

  • John||

    hey don't have to and I don't care if they do or don't. If they encroach on my liberty, I have the option of self-defense

    Sure you do. But you can't live in a society where you are constantly in conflict with other people. The point of self defense is to deter people so that you don't have to use it. Worse your self defense is only as good as your ability to use it. That is great if you are a young healthy well armed person. Not so much if you are old and sick or your enemy really violent and strong.

    Self defense is great but it is not some solve all such that you can just have the government walk away and leave people to their own devices. We have to be able to live with each other and we have to all have agreed upon standards of behavior towards each other or the whole thing falls apart. And some people need government to either deter them from acting otherwise or just remove them from society if that fails. This is the reality that Libertarians cannot account for.

  • Mustang||

    No shit. That's where the voluntary association part comes in. I don't have to associate with people who are trying to infringe my rights. If they force themselves upon me I can defend myself, either through peaceful or violent means. Is this really so hard to grasp? I don't need the government to deter them from doing bad things. I can deter them, or myself and a group of like-minded people can deter them (or remove them, if it comes to it). I can do that without the government. It's a reality that's fully accounted for.

    This is a really, really simple concept to grasp and you seem to be deliberately missing the point. You seem to think that everyone would just start beating each other to death and ignoring the fact that people voluntarily associate or disassociate with others on a daily basis, without government involvement.

    Based on your other posts it seems that you are determined to stay blinded to...something. I don't know what it is that your missing here, so I can only assume you're deliberately ignoring the glaringly obvious.

  • John||

    I don't have to associate with people who are trying to infringe my rights.

    Oh yes you do. If they want to associate with you, what do you plan to do about it? You don't get to choose for them.

  • Citizen X||

    Refuse, John. As loudly and as strenuously as necessary.

  • Mustang||

    I talk to them and we come to an agreement. If they cannot come to an agreement, I make it very clear that they will not cross my property. If they cross my property, I shoot them. If I cannot handle them, I get a group of individuals to help me. If this continues to happen and my voluntary army cannot overcome them, then we die.

    This is what happens in real life, John. You seem to be of the mindset that having a government will prevent us from losing or dying, which is, frankly, utterly retarded.

    What kind of scenario, exactly, are you proposing where this principle does not work?

  • John||

    And when they blow your head off and take your property? And do you plan to live in a constant state of alert to prevent that?

    Do you never think through any of this stuff?

  • Mustang||

    You do understand that there is nothing that can be done to prevent that right? That can happen at any moment, even now, with a strong government? Do you want an armed guard posted outside every window and door?

    I do live in a constant state of alert. That's how I defend my property.

  • John||

    Yes there is. I can not let such people into my country in the first place. I could not let cultures that say its okay to burn shit down and steal things ever flourish in the first place and make it clear if you believe that you are not welcome. What I don't do is sit around and wait for something to happen. Then it is too late.

  • Mustang||

    No. Fucking. Shit. That's where the property agreements come in. Jesus you're an idiot. I can get a group of property owners together and agree that "Group X" does not cross this line unless they meet certain conditions before they ever even get there. I can hire private armies to help me defend it. I can do all these things voluntarily and without government mandates. That's called being proactive. I don't have to wait for a threat to come to my door to know that it's smart to lock it and I don't need a government agency to tell me to close and lock my windows at night to deter a thief.

  • SugarFree||

    John loves playing the only sane man. Too bad the fact that it is all an act is lost on him.

  • Agammamon||

    John, after all this time you still do not understand what the non-aggression principle is.

    Its to not *initiate* force against others. Its not to stand idly by while others run amok destroying everything you've built.

    Its not being little islands of self-sufficiency - you're allowed to make alliances and work together to protect your group.

  • John||

    I understand the NAP just fine. What you people refuse to admit is that there is nothing making people abide by it. That is what you don't get. You think everyone is just like you or can be deterred by the threat of self defense into acting like you. Sadly, that is just not true. If it were, we could all be anarchists because we wouldn't need a government.

    This is when Libertarianism crosses into the realm of Utopianism.

  • kbolino||

    If they're not deterred by the threat, then they'll be stopped by the exercise.

    Somewhere in your head you have conflated non-aggression with pacifism and refuse to own up to it.

  • John||

    Why would you think that Kbolino? I understand it means self defense. It is not pacifism. The problem is that it doesn't endorse preemptive action. You have to wait for them to agress you. And sadly, that is often when it is too late. The NAP depends upon deterrence to work as much as anything. And some people can't be deterred. And that is what you people don't get.

    You guys don't even understand your own doctrine. And then make up for it by being smug.

  • Citizen X||

    And some people can't be deterred.

    Duh, John. Some people won't be deterred by a homeowner with a gun... but those people equally won't be deterred by the prospect that a chubby fascist with a donut addiction might show up fifteen minutes or an hour later.

    Fortunately, such people are extremely, extremely rare.

  • kbolino||

    Gee, John, after you've said something totally different than what you originally said, it starts to make some kind of sense. Maybe you shouldn't smugly proclaim your understanding when you have such a hard time elucidating it.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I understand the NAP just fine. What you people refuse to admit is that there is nothing making people abide by it.

    The NAP is a statement of principle about what is permissible in society and what is not; it says nothing about enforcement per se, other than that aggression by government is just as impermissible as aggression by individuals.

    You think everyone is just like you or can be deterred by the threat of self defense into acting like you.

    "Self-defense" includes private police forces, which differ from public police forces mostly in that they are actually accountable to the people they are defending and liable for any harm they are causing.

  • Suicidy||

    I agree. I believe in the constitution, but it may not be enough to prevent being enslaved by totalitarian progressives who woro to enslave us. If that means ignoring the rights of villainous progtards to protect my freedom, then so be it. My life and freedom are worth the screaming deaths of a billion totalitarian progressives if it comes down to it, if they won't stop on their own.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Generalization.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Eh. Probably true of conservatism as a whole, but neo-cons are more of a grafted branch off the tree of New Deal-era politics.

  • tarran||

    All right. John. Please do this as promptly as you can. If you are unable to complete any step because you are missing any props, please skip to the next step:

    1) Look in a mirror and smile. Does one side of your face droop? (Y/N)

    2) Raise both arms out to the side. Does one or both arms drift downward? (Y/N)

    3) Using Skype's test calling service say "In the beginning was the Word" Listen to the playback. Are the words slurred? (Y/N)

    If you answered Y to any of these questions, or couldn't perform any of the actions (speaking, moving your arms, moving your face), call 911 or have someone call it for you and inform them that you are having a stroke.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    *slow clap*

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    John, you are seriously not making any sense. What is your point, exactly?

  • John||

    My point is that the conservatives that are butt hurt about Trump are mostly a particularly stupid strain of kind of sort of Libertarians. They talk in Libertarian words and concepts but they don't seem to understand what they mean and mostly just use them as either a substitute for thinking or as a rationalization for what they want.

    So, for example, they are all about freedom and free trade but it never occurs to them that the same arguments for free access to commerce applies to immigration. They are in that sense Libertarians who don't like Mexicans. If you think there could be good reasons to restrict immigration, then you also have to admit there might be reasons to restrict trade as well. They are not bright enough to understand that.

    They are all about freedom and small government and such but seem to have nothing to say about the drug war and some of them are drug warriors. They are one giant exercise in the inability or unwillingness to take ones' ideas and concepts seriously.

    I am a life long conservative. And I am saddened by the sorry intellectual state of the people who make up the movement today.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    So not only are you opposed to the free movement of labor, you are opposed to free trade as well? Well, at least you are consistent, I will give you that. It does lead to wonder, though, if you are calling yourself a life long conservative, what exactly ARE your principles?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    I'm beginning to think John is Agile Cyborg after the drugs wear off and he's halfway lucid.

  • John||

    I beginning to think you people are morons who can't understand anything but the simplest types of arguments. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on conservatives. I don't see why you people are having such a hard time understanding what I am saying.

  • John||

    No Wood, I am not opposed to either. But I don't think there is a moral right to either one or that the answer to either is set in stone in every circumstance.

    Yeah, the government has a right to regulate foreign trade and immigration. It is what government's do. How it should do that is the hard part. If I wanted answers to be easy, I would be a Libertarian and just say "but its a moral issue" every time someone pointed out an argument or fact I didn't like.

    My point that you missed is that if you want to claim to take the easy answer for trade, you better then do the same for immigration. I was actually complimenting libertarians for at least being consistent and understanding their own principles.

  • ||

    My point is that the conservatives that are butt hurt about Trump are mostly a particularly stupid strain of kind of sort of Libertarians.

    Or they could just be principled.

    But it's a nice broad brush you're painting them with.

  • John||

    They could be but they are not. They would have supported candidates who are much less conservative than Trump. And most of their objections to Trump seem to relate to the fact that he actually is serious about doing things they claim to support. My God he wants to deport all of the illegal aliens. All these pro border security conservatives are just shocked by that idea as if you could secure the border without actually deporting anyone.

    They don't know what they believe most of them. They think they do but that is only because they think mouthing words like freedom and the constitution is the same as knowing what they mean.

  • Calidissident||

    John, I think you're conflating the establishment part of the NeverTrump crowd with the "true conservative" part.

  • John||

    No Cali, I am not. I wish I were. But the self proclaimed conservatives are in many ways even worse than the establishment. As annoying as Libertarians can be, they at least actually believe what they say and take their beliefs seriously. You have to respect that. Conservatives don't anymore. They really don't. They claim to believe in immigration control but then bitch and moan about actually doing it. If deporting people bothers you, then you should reconsider your support for immigration law. If punishing women who have abortions is terrible, then stop supporting banning them. If you don't believe in nation building, then stop supporting nation building and shitting your pants when Trump says we should only act in our national interest when dealing with the world.

    Trump whether he meant to or not revealed the entire conservative movement to be a shell of its former self and that it no longer took its own ideas seriously.

  • Good Chipper||

    Am I crazy, or was John not being a shits-panting dick a couple of months ago about arrogant Libertarians doing the exact thing (to a lesser degree) he's doing here?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Am I crazy, or was John not being a shits-panting dick

    You've been, Johnmented, dude. It happens to everyone.

  • Good Chipper||

    You've been, Johnmented, dude. It happens to everyone.

    Nah man, the dude puts pants on shit. Real twisted motherfucker.

  • SugarFree||

    You're not crazy. This is just John in his condescending mode, as if worshipping Trump and having zero principles are something to preen about.

  • John||

    Why do you think I worship Trump SF? What evidence do you have to cause you say that? I don't think I do. If I have left that impression I would be curious to hear how.

    So please either provide some explanation for that or take it back because to my knowledge it is not true and there is no reason to think that.

  • SugarFree||

    Why do you think I worship Trump SF?

    Maybe because you will twist any word and torture any bit of logic to defend him?

    You can say whatever you like, but you are judged on your actions.

  • John||

    I don't think I do that. Show me where I have. I have often called him a real estate hustler and reality TV star. That doesn't sound very worshipful to me.

    And I never said a word about Trump in this thread. I was criticizing conservatives. I would like to see how I will twist anything in his favor. I will happily give you lots of criticism of Trump. What I won't do is engage in the pants shitting idiocy over him that many people on this board seem to enjoy.

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, because only this one thread can be looked at, not the rest of the comments on this article and the other few thousand posts you made slobbering all over Trump in the past few months.

  • John||

    Show me where I slobber over Trump? If you are going to make that accusation provide evidence. You accused me of worshiping Trump and I said, no I am critical of him and offered to explain how.

    Do you just want to believe that I worship Trump? Does it make you feel good or somehing? Why does it bother you to admit I don't?

  • SugarFree||

    OK, John. Just believe what you want to believe. You will anyway.

  • John||

    Yeah Sugar Free. I know my own thoughts. So, yeah, I am in a position to say with authority that no I am not worshipful of Trump. In fact, I am the only person who can say that with any authority.

    My question is, what have I said that has caused you to believe that?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Am I crazy, or was John not being a shits-panting dick a couple of months ago about arrogant Libertarians doing the exact thing (to a lesser degree) he's doing here?


    Por que no los dos?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As an aside, English really needs to distinguish between or and xor.

  • tarran||

    XOR?!?! You're either an AND or an OR. Transoperators are a mental disorder!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    NAND or NOR are the universal gates.

  • Zeb||

    It really does. I usually assume "or" to be inclusive. But that isn't always to my advantage.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I am a life long conservative. And I am saddened by the sorry intellectual state of the people who make up the movement today.

    Why? You should feel right at home, given your own sorry intellectual state.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    John, you are seriously not making any sense.

    THE JOHNMENTER CLAIMS YET ANOTHER VICTIM

  • ||

    Why would anybody ever treat John like anything but Republican Tony is beyond me.

  • John||

    Yeah Audrey, I just spent an entire thread ripping on Republicans and conservatives but I am the Republicans. And I an the Republican Tony?

    That doesn't even make any sense. If you hate me fine. But could you do me a favor and at least give a sensible reason?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Yeah Audrey, I just spent an entire thread ripping on Republicans and conservatives but I am the Republicans. And I an the Republican Tony?

    Tony is a socialist dissatisfied with Democrats for not being socialist enough. You are a conservative dissatisfied with Republicans for not being sufficiently conservative. Both of you are trolls, and both of you are intellectually challenged. So, yeah, you are "the Republican Tony".

  • Calidissident||

    The Never Trump crowd are mostly either staunch conservatives or establishment types. There aren't very many libertarians in the GOP to begin with.

  • ||

    I suppose there is a small chance that the non-interventionist ideology of the LP will rob off on them, but I won't hold my breath.

    No - the only interest they will take in libertarianism is in finding that people respond positively to the word "libertarian," and so they will start using it to describe their agenda (which will remain unchanged).

  • John||

    They are big on buzz words. They are all "constitutional conservatives" who want to return the federal government back to its original intended limits. You know, like that it should only have to power to regulate interstate commerce, except for drugs because those are bad and the founders knew that.

    The want a a Republic like we used to have except for that whole government funding itself by tariffs on international trade. The founders never intended that and the US was never protectionist until filthy communists and Democrats started saying it should be.

    There is a lot of deep thinking going on.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I am more concerned about this potential influx of neocons into the LP.

    It's the Messikin invasion all over again.

  • Brochettaward||

    Chipper Morning Wood demonstrates why Republicans will never care to pander to libertarians even if they lean that way. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Are you talking about my non-interventionist comment? Some of us take that as a fundamental feature of libertarianism. To the extent that Republicans are warmongers, our differences are indeed irreconcilable.

  • Brochettaward||

    I'm speaking to the 'eff Rand' comment.

  • EMD||

    He meant to say "Elf Rand" because Rand kind of looks elfy.

  • The Grinch||

    He said he'd endorse the Rep nominee and he did. I'm certain he'd prefer someone else but realistically, who would you expect him to endorse-Clinton or Sanders? Paul may be very libertarianish but he's still a Republican and he did what he seems to feel was his duty. It's a shame there aren't more politicians like him.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    "who would you expect him to endorse-Clinton or Sanders?"

    GARY JOHNSON

    A girl can dream

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    You know why he, or his dad, would never endorse GayJay.

  • The Grinch||

    I'd agree that the Libertarian candidate would be the best choice but I suspect Paul has a sense of loyalty, in my view misguided, to the Republican Party. There are worse reasons to do questionable things and I'm going to give him a pass on this one.

  • lap83||

    Gary Johnson isn't a very good libertarian candidate. He'd be awesome if he was a Democrat. But he is a liberal and Rand Paul is not.

  • lap83||

    I should say he's not a good candidate. Maybe he's a great libertarian since so many libertarians like him. I can't know what libertarianism means or care anymore.

  • lap83||

    Don't

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    He is a very good libertarian candidate. He isn't, however, a purist.

    There is a such thing as good enough.

  • Brochettaward||

    I above defend Rand as 'good enough.' As a Republican or Democrat, I'd agree. However, if I'm going to vote for a third party candidate (as opposed to not voting), I'd like purity. Perhaps you could argue it's better to have a good pitchman who exposes more people to libertarianism and Johnson's is more palpable.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Perhaps you could argue it's better to have a good pitchman who exposes more people to libertarianism and Johnson's is more palpable.

    There is something to be said for incrementalism. When attempting to attract people (Republicans?) to your cause, while wholly in line with our principles, legalizing heroin and bigamy might not be the place to start. You're more likely to convince them of those things once you've gotten them to accept the basic tenets by applying them to less "drastic" departures from their current norms.

  • RoninX||

    I would have defended Rand as "good enough" before I read this article. Endorsing Trump is inexcusable for a libertarian.

    I could understand his endorsement of Romney. Romney was not great, but he was not-great in the same way that most establishment Republicans are. Trump is orders of magnitude worse. He's not only worse on social issues, he's (amazingly) worse than Obama on economic issues too.

  • Robert||

    Heh...Johnson's more palpable...heh....

  • SimonJester||

    I am interested to hear why think think GayJay is A) a bad libertarian, and B) a bad libertarian candidate.

    100% honestly, I want to know where you think he diverges from LP or libertarian thought.

  • DOOMco||

    Forced labor.

  • SimonJester||

    Do go on. You have my attention.

  • DOOMco||

  • DOOMco||

  • DOOMco||

    I don't think he's a bad candidate. I think he is a libertarian. I think he knows the libertarian answer to things, and works backwards to the why. I don't think he is the best at salesmanship. I also would consider him bleeding heart, which causes him to be ok ignoring freedom of association when it's scary.

  • SimonJester||

    You SF'd the "What is a right?" link. Just a heads up.

  • DOOMco||

  • Brochettaward||

    Garry Johnson leads off by wanting everyone to know he has a beautiful family and is in love. With a female.

  • Brochettaward||

    And McAfee talks about drugs and ends by referencing privacy and liberty as the basis for a sane society.

  • EMD||

    McAfee's eloquence is rather startling.

  • lap83||

    I might write in McAfee as my vote

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I liked McAfee in the debate. Certainly more pure and eloquent than GayJo. But I honestly believe GayJo is in a better position to further libertarian ideals than McAfee is.

    And GayJo doesn't have this hanging over him.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    100% honestly, I want to know where you think he diverges from LP or libertarian thought.

    One issue, and one issue only as far as I know...

    Public accommodation laws.

  • lap83||

    That's the one, but like I realized after my first post, if most libertarians don't think it's a big deal then maybe he could still be a good libertarian candidate. I don't want to attempt to define the term for everyone else. That said it's a big deal to me.

  • Rhywun||

    Do you expect the perfect libertarian candidate to walk back the civil rights movement to pre-1964? I wouldn't hold my breath.

  • lap83||

    So the only two options are to die on the hill of trying to walk back the civil rights movement or forced labor for the special interest groups du jour?

  • Rhywun||

    Not at all. Just speculating that if the issue is really that important - and you want to be consistent - why not go whole hog. Because drawing the line in the sand that says some approved groups get the "forced labor" and others don't seems kind of petty.

  • DOOMco||

    I own my body, I own my labor.
    From this principle, I can argue several things. The war on drugs is wrong. The income tax is wrong. A person can sellook you who the want.

  • Citizen X||

    A person can sellook you who the want.

    A person can make up their own damn language.

  • DOOMco||

    I hate my phone, X. Can sell to who they want.

  • brady949||

    I'd rather he sit this one out like Ben Sasse.

  • EMD||

    I get Sasse's point, but how many dumpster fires are there in his town? Seems like he should be focusing on his constituents.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    It's a shame there aren't more politicians like him.

    Oh, there are plenty.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Who?

  • Dan Bongard||

    I'll forgive Rand Paul for his endorsement if he keeps performing well in his actual job.

  • UnCivilServant||

    He's returning to Opthamology?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Which looks better? *flip (everything looks like Clinton)* number 1? *flip (everything looks like Trump)* or number 2?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Ha.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    I instantly went blind undergoing Stormy's test.

    THANKS A LOT, STORMY.

  • Hugh Akston||

    When Trump loses the general election, will that precipitate a second civil war, or will it merely cause Trumplings to move underground, gradually diverging in evolution from other humans to become Trumplocks?

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    Trump fans have already shown the ability to completely unhinged their jaws when excited so I believe this divergent evolution has already begun.

  • Citizen X||

    That baby was completely gone within seconds, i bet.

  • John||

    You are so great Irish. We don't tell you that enough.

  • Citizen X||

    He's a racist, you know.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    He's a racist, you know.

    There are no people of color in that picture...

  • EMD||

    False. Trump is ORANGE.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    I feel like this is sarcastic, but I'll take it

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    Boy I hope that sign was a Photoshop. But I know better.

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    That pic would make a wonderfully creepy jigsaw puzzle.

    Just a real "yeesh" factor.

  • Citizen X||

    At least the Hilloi will be safe from their predation, as Trumplocks only eat cake.

  • John||

    No. It will just mean stupid people will no longer have whining about Trump as an easy way to feel smart. If he loses, it will be a tough pill for you Hugh, but being stupid is like that sometimes.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    I think it's funny that when people call Trump supporters stupid you accuse them of social signalling, but when you call Trump opponents stupid, for some reason it's not social signalling.

  • John||

    I am totally social signalling. I have never denied that. I absolutely am not a part of the pants shitting morons who think a real estate hustler and part time reality TV show host is some kind of existential threat to the country or so awful that it is just IMPOSIBLES!! that he could win.

    I am not part of that group and go to great efforts to social and virtue signal that fact. Guilty as charged.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I think you are in the wrong place, if you are trying to attract a mate.

  • John||

    Everyone else social signals. Why can't I?

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Oh, feel free to signal as much as you want. I was just pointing it out that it might not be an effective use of your energy.

  • John||

    I will be the judge of how to use my energy. I enjoy it so that works for me.

  • Zeb||

    As we are all social animals, it's hard to avoid.

    But I still think you have way too much confidence in your ability to divine other people's intentions.

  • John||

    No I don't Zeb. You, like everyone else on here, just miss what I am saying. What I do is take what people say and make rational conclusions based on that and say "so you believe X then". They have course don't believe that and I know that. That is the point of what I am saying. I am pointing out the unacceptable rational implications of their position as a way to show them that it is wrong. People don't like being wrong and having it pointed out. So, they just fall back on "what are you a mind reader" and pretend that the rational implications of their position somehow don't exist.

  • Citizen X||

    John, if "everyone else on here" is missing the same things and coming to the same conclusions about YOUR statements, maybe take a look at the common denominator.

  • SugarFree||

    There are five lights, CX. Five.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    take a look at the common denominator.

    Which is everyone else, fuckwit.

  • Citizen X||

    Which is everyone else, fuckwit.

    Oh shit, i forgot that we're all Tulpa. My bad.

  • John||

    I don't know citizen X. I can only say what I see. And time and again when confronted with the necessary implications of their position people go to the "you just think you are a mind reader" dodge. It is what it is.

  • Citizen X||

    Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that your "rational conclusions" so seldom rationally follow for anyone else who frequents this site (e.g. people who are genuinely interested in, and have thought a lot about, the implications of libertarian philosophy)?

  • John||

    It does follow. If it didn't, they would explain why. Instead, they just say "I don't believe that".

    It is not that I am always right. It is that I know when I am right when someone can't explain why I am wrong and reverts to the "you are just a mind reader" dodge.

  • Citizen X||

    If it didn't, they would explain why.

    People try. Oh my god do people try.

  • Citizen X||

    If it didn't, they would explain why.

    People try. Oh my god do people try.

  • Zeb||

    I see you do that too. And occasionally you will actually prompt me to reconsider something I have said. But, especially when you are accusing everyone of just engaging in social signalling, implying that what people say is not their sincere opinions or beliefs, you shouldn't be surprised that people accuse you of thinking you can read minds.

  • John||

    There I am guilty as charged Zeb. No, I don't actually think they are guilty of social signaling. That is not an example of what I am talking about. There, I really am just fucking with them. But they fuck with me right back. And that is fine. I don't complain about that. I just give it right back. Sadly. many of them don't seem to take as well as they give. It is all fun and games to call me "Red Tony" (on a thread where I am tearing apart the entire conservative movement no less) but let me call them a bunch of social signaling posers and that is just beyond the pale.

    People are more nasty to me on here than I am to them. Yet somehow I am Nikki level worst.

  • ||

    People are more nasty to me on here than I am to them.

    Good one John.

  • Zeb||

    I can't speak for anyone else, but every time I talk about Trump, I feel stupider.

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    +1 WHYCUM TRMP

  • grrizzly||

    "When it comes to Trump, I hate everyone." Wisdom of 2016.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Checks out:

    "The Morlocks and the Eloi have something of a symbiotic relationship: the Eloi are clothed and fed by the Morlocks, and in return, the Morlocks eat the Eloi. The Time Traveler perceives this, and suggests that the Eloi–Morlock relationship developed from a class distinction present in his own time: the Morlocks are the working class who had to work underground so that the rich upper class could live in luxury. Their cannibalism is explained by the extinction of other sources of animal protein."

  • Hugh Akston||

    Nice how I kinda nailed that reference, huh? Of course people who only eat books might confuse my comment for calling certain people stupid, but you did the work to actually explore it.

  • Citizen X||

    This is why nobody compliments you, Hugh.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The problem with the Morlocks today is that they have yet to start dining on the Eloi. Perhaps the Trumplocks will change that.

    Morlock Liberation Army 2016!

  • Mudhen||

    I suspect it's mainly to stay viable for his next run in 2020 or 2024.

  • DOOMco||

    An eye surgeon running in 2020.

  • ||

    ^ This.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's Friday, let's try to pick up the mood a little.

    WHO'S WITH ME?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Hitler?

    oh, wait that's "You know who else was with me?"

  • Citizen X||

    No, no. It was definitely Hitler.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    I was gonna say Epi's mom, but that dude has disappeared.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    So has Nicole. I assume some kind of murder/suicide

  • SimonJester||

    Zodiac Killer got to 'em. Now that he isn't running for president, he can get back to his previous line of work.

  • Quincy.||

    Ok.

  • ||

    OMG LOOKIT HIS PAWS

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Kitten TV?

    SUBBED!

  • Aloysious||

  • Citizen X||

    Jesus, Stevie Ray Vaughan even managed to make "Pipeline" boring.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Saving that link for later. But before I get misunderstood like Eddie Izzard, I don't have a foot fetish, I just appreciate a woman who can wear a pair of shoes.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I don't have a foot fetish,

    I choose to pretend otherwise. That video is probably just for foot fetishists and those of us who appreciate bad spelling.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    least sexiest bikini top ever.

    And yet...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yes. Exactly.

  • Citizen X||

    Q. What would Marilyn Monroe be doing if she was alive right now?

    A. CrustyClawing at the inside of her coffin.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I would save her!!!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Two points!

  • ||

    Paul thinks it's best for his political future if he doesn't burn any additional bridges

    This is why he's been a failure on the national stage - he refuses to be stubbornly principled like ol' dad, and thinks the best course is to be flexible and pragmatic (and pandery). That's not what people want him for. He'd have done way better emulating dad instead of emulating the worst of the political class.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Rand's dad was basically pre-Trump. His impact on the "national stage" in terms of actual libertarian results has been negligible, as far as I can tell. Rand Paul would be pandering if he were to endorse only the types of candidates that his libertarian supporters ideologically prefer. Instead, he's kept true to his word and endorsed the nominee. TBH, the libertarian complaints about Rand always seem to essentially be that he doesn't pander enough to them on issues where he lacks the ability to be effective.

  • Calidissident||

    One could argue he's pandering to Trump supporters here. But only Rand knows the answer to that.

  • DOOMco||

    In 2012, Ron didn't endorse the libertarian party. He didn't endorse anyone. He also left the political stage. If rand wants to stick with the Republicans, this lukewarm endorsement is part of that.

  • invisible finger||

    I'm pretty sure Rand failed BECAUSE he's stubbornly principled, even if he is slightly less stubborn than his old man.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's not what people want him for. He'd have done way better emulating dad instead of emulating the worst of the political class.

    Can we blame him for trying that strategy when it's the worst of the political class that's actually winning elections?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    This is why he's been a failure on the national stage

    Meh. I'd be willing to guess he'd have failed either way. But, yes, it'd be nice to see some spine and an alternative to the establishment that wasn't based in stupid.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Paul has always been a fair-weather libertarian. He'll back libertarianism only when it's popular and there's no cost to his political career for doing so.

  • invisible finger||

    Is that what his Senate voting record shows?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Zero problems with this.

    Realistically, Rand Paul's endorsement could have been 1) for a third party candidate, 2) withheld, or 3) for his party's candidate.

    Going for #1 is a bit of mental masturbation which does nothing for his political goals and would have negatively impacted his effectiveness in the Senate. Going for #2 would have done nothing for him either way. Assuming that Rand Paul's endorsement has some effect, going for #3 resulting in a Trump win doesn't have predicably worse results than a Hillary win, nets him some goodwill from within the party and from the Presidential candidate, and makes it more likely that a third-party endorsement in the future would carry more weight, coming as it does from a Senator who doesn't simply endorse third-party candidates as a matter of course.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Did Rand sign the pledge to support the party nominee? Might this simply be a case of keeping his word?

  • John||

    As a candidate last fall, I would imagine he did. Funny how that got thrown down the memory hole.

  • tarran||

    He did sing that pledge. He was an idiot to do so.

  • DOOMco||

    Sure, that's a fine argument.
    But he did, and now sticking to his word.

  • tarran||

    What is a good politician? One who stays bought.

  • EMD||

    Signing was dumb. But belting it out like that was just over-the-top.

  • EMD||

    Signing was dumb. But belting it out like that was just over-the-top.

  • Vampire||

    I agree EMD. Does your handle mean Electro-Motive Diesel?

    He should have simply said, he will not be signing any petition, as if a candidate were to be anti liberty, he could never support them. End of story, not bound to anyone, etc.

    Him screaming it out and attacking Trump did nothing but hurt his campaign. It's unfortunate that going after someone's BS record as a "conservative" would be seen as a bad thing, but some folks just care there feelz don't get hurt.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you're ignoring the possibility of a Trump endorsement hurting him in the future. If Trump loses big (I don't think it's guaranteed, but I think it's definitely a possibility) then having a Trump endorsement on your record might be a liability in the future. It's not like the entire party establishment (or the "true conservatives" for that matter) are all lining up behind Trump right now.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Considered that, but left it out since I couldn't think of any actual real-world examples of this happening to an American politician. Did Republican Goldwater Senators suffer for their endorsement (particularly a lukewarm endorsement)? How about Mondale endorsers?

    I suppose there's the off chance that Trump will start rounding up leftists Pinochet-style and that the succeeding regime will look askance at people who endorsed Trump, but otherwise I think Rand's fine.

  • eatapc||

    Yeesh. Really, Rand? Being a political whore will never ingratiate you with the Republican Party or its conservative base, it'll just make you look hypocritical.

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    Rand blew just it. Should have stuck to the principle that if we have leaders that we hate, our side shouldn't be the ones responsible for putting them there.

    Liberty has been getting hosed lately. Depressing...

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Sorry, Rand, you can endorse him to your heart's content. I still won't vote for him.

    Everyone's been touting Trump by saying he's "anti-establishment". That may be true. But, it's also true that David Duke was opposed to the establishment. The fact is that the establishment is awful because it's indifferent to individual liberty. But, what if the guy attacking the establishment is doing so because he's downright hostile to individual liberty?

  • ||

    +1 George Wallace

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Everyone's been touting Trump by saying he's "anti-establishment". That may be true. But, it's also true that David Duke was opposed to the establishment. The fact is that the establishment is awful because it's indifferent to individual liberty. But, what if the guy attacking the establishment is doing so because he's downright hostile to individual liberty?

    I have no further comment. I quoted you because this simply can't be said enough.

  • Calidissident||

    Agreed with Bill and Francisco. I've seen libertarians make this argument on both side in favor of Trump and Sanders. That they're better because at least they're "anti-establishment." I know the comparison is hyperbolic and I'm not equating those two with them, but the Nazis and Bolsheviks were both anti-establishment. There are many times where anti-establishment groups should be opposed by libertarians more (or at least just as much) than the establishment.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    In particular Rand's biggest fanboy writer here. Oops.

  • Glide||

    That's fine. Trump won without anyone important endorsing him, so it's not like people are seriously swayed by these statements. Rand can play the Republican game, he just needs to demonstrate from time to time that he hasn't lost his libertarian soul, and falling in line with the idiot your own state's voters selected isn't really a soul-defining moment.

  • John||

    Serious question, how is Trump any less Libertarian than McCain? Didn't someone at reason write a book about how unLibertarian McCain was?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    1. Protectionism
    2. Immigration
    3. Libel law
    4. Barring any adherent of a religion from entry into the U.S.

    When people can come up with a list of issues that John McCain has better libertarian credibility on than your candidate, you know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

  • John||

    Libel law? McCain coaurhered McCain Feigngold which basically repealed the 1st Amendment. Trump said we might want to reconsider NYT v. Sullivan, which is barely 50 years old, a judicially created doctrine and basically gives the media a license to lie about public figures. And you think that is worse than McCain Feigngold? WTF?

    And McCain is all over the map on immigration. That is at best a push.

    So I am not seeing much of a case here, espcially considering that McCain Feigngold is the most liberty restricting law passed since Wilson.

  • ||

    I have to say I'm with John on this one - I loathe Trump, but "the Least Libertarian GOP Nominee in Decades" doesn't pass the LOL test.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So the one candidate who has espoused the worst right AND left positions isn't the most unlibertarian. That makes sense.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Partisanship over country. I've said all along that Rand Paul is just another Washington politician.

  • invisible finger||

    Yeah, all that liberty-leaning legislation he introduced while no other Senator introduced any was really just a smokescreen to get the 2% if libertarians to vote for him. What a fraud.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Partisanship over virtue signaling. Some people know what political parties are for.

  • invisible finger||

    responded by mocking Paul's hair.)

    If only this were the only hair mocking going on.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Trump's continued support for eminent domain, a policy that virtually no one else in the GOP or libertarian movement supports

    Sure Libertarians are against eminent domain, but are Republicans really against it. They might object to the Kelo type of ED where a private party is the beneficiary, but pretty sure the GOP is still fine with taking your land to build a highway.

  • Zeb||

    Or a borer fence.

  • ||

    Sure Libertarians are against eminent domain, but are Republicans really against it.

    I've actually known more Republicans to support actions like declaring private property blighted and handing it over to private developers than I've known Democrats to support such things - in fact, in the East Bay it's generally the lefties fighting against this type of thing under the "gentrification" heading, and Republicans supporting it under the "economic renewal" heading, but this is maybe part of CA backwards-land reality.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, that seems to be one of the issues where both parties are pretty bad in slightly different ways.

  • Tak Kak||

    "There is virtually no issue where Trump's views align with libertarianism (his continued support for eminent domain, a policy that virtually no one else in the GOP or libertarian movement supports, is perhaps the best example of this)."

    Didn't "Mr. Libertarian" Walter Block form a group called "Libertarians For Trump"? Seems like there's an issue or two where Trump's views do align with libertarianism.

  • GILMORE™||

    Seems like there's an issue or two where Trump's views do align with libertarianism.

    \

    yes, but selective nuance is reserved for people like Bernie Sanders.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    "Didn't "Mr. Libertarian" Walter Block form a group called "Libertarians For Trump"?"

    Don't get me started on that. Block has lost his mind.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Raimondo too. Scott Horton is the only one that has Trump figured out.

  • Raven Nation||

    Block on Trump.

    I was at first surprised but then, on reading it, not surprised, Trump parallels Block's non-interventionism.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah, should have phrased that better, in Block's view, Trump is a non-interventionist:

    compared to his Republican alternatives, the Donald stands head and shoulders above them. He has said, time and time again, things like “Look at what we did in Iraq. It’s a mess. Look at what we did in Libya. It’s a mess there too. And we’re going to repeat our mistakes in Syria? Not on my watch.” Would Cruz or Rubio ever say anything like that? To ask this question is to answer it. And, very importantly, who is the one candidate who went out of his way so as to not antagonize Russia and Premier Putin? It is the Donald, that is who. Do we really want to fight World War III with Russia? With Mr. Trump at the helm, we minimize the chances of this catastrophe occurring...Yes, future President Trump wants a strong military, but with only a few exceptions, fewer than the other Republican candidates, only to defend our country
  • invisible finger||

    No more severe butt hurt than the butt hurt of TRUE. BELIEVERS.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The libertarian-leaning Republican isn't wrong about Clinton's awfulness. But Trump—a thin-skinned lunatic who peddles conspiracy theories, encourages violence and censorship, prefers big government, and loathes the free market—is just as bad, and arguably much worse, including and especially from a libertarian perspective. "

    Trump is "arguably" much worse than Hillary?

    Well go ahead and make an argument for it then.

    Because I haven't heard anything yet that would back up that claim.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    a thin-skinned lunatic who peddles conspiracy theories, encourages violence and censorship, prefers big government, and loathes the free market


    Hell, that list is a much better description of Hillary Clinton's public persona than Trump's.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    Really? Because Trump is indisputably thin-skinned, he claimed Ted Cruz's dad was hanging out with Lee Harvey Oswald, he threatened riots if he lost the nomination, and all of his policies support the idea that he likes big government and opposes markets.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The people who are culturally or otherwise sympathetic to Trump are never going to think he is worse than Clinton, because on some level they agree with him, or at least are able to rationalize away his bad qualities as being no big deal. The same goes for people who are sympathetic to Clinton. Or to Gary Johnson, or anyone else, for that matter. It's human nature.

    I don't care who is worse. I'm not voting for either because there is likely to be a candidate that better represents my views. That they stand no chance of winning doesn't matter to me. That they might actually have an opportunity to garner a noticeable vote total is, I think, really important, though. Which is why I would encourage all libertarians to vote for an LP or libertarianish candidate. It will be pure social signaling, but frankly, people respond to that, so we shouldn't shy away from it out of some sense of moral superiority.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    he threatened riots if he lost the nomination

    Of all the awful things that Trump says on a minute-by-minute basis, I still contend this isn't one of them, and while I can't link to it because I believe it was said in a podcast by one of our own anti-Trump faithful staffers, this remark could have been interpreted a lot of ways.

    For instance, if Bernie Sanders wins the popular vote but it looks like it was stolen from him by the Clinton machine-- there could be riots. That can easily be interpreted as a guess as to how a large body of people might react if they feel they've been treated unfairly.

  • John||

    The tell about this is not that people don't support Trump. There are good reasons not to support him, especially if you are a Libertarian. The tell is that they continue to believe ridiculous shit that he threatened riots, which as you point out is complete bullshit. They can never just say "I don't want Trump to be President because I don't agree with the things he supports". It always has to be some histrionic "oh my God is he so bad..." followed by something that either isn't that bad or is a complete lie.

    When people do this I can only conclude that they are social signaling. They are saying it because "I don't like Trump" isn't good enough. No they have to show how they understand how Trump is evil and illegitimate and they are part of the group that understands that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The tell is that they continue to believe ridiculous shit that he threatened riots, which as you point out is complete bullshit.

    With the remark that I heard, I simply can't say if he did or didn't threaten riots. Someone asked him what he thought would happen if he wins the popular vote but doesn't get the nom, and as I recall, he said "I think you'd have riots". This exact statement has been made by public officials far and wide over the last 30 years for various situations and circumstances and I just don't think it made those people reprehensible for saying it, even if I disagreed with those people. Hell, Maxine Waters excused riots that had already happened and I don't recall any repercussions from that.

    Now, if Trump stands in front of a crowd and tells them to go out into the streets and burn the city down if he doesn't win the nom, that would be a far different thing.

  • John||

    The other one that drives me nuts is the libel law thing. NYT v. Sullivan didn't even exist before 1960. Saying that media shouldn't be able to rely on the reckless disregard standard for libel against public figures may not be the right position but it is hardly some great threat to free speech. The Republic did just fine with everyone having the same standard for liable for almost 200 years and it would do fine if it ever went back to it. Yet, people are convinced Trump wants to repeal the first amendment and jail his critics.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I happen to think it's creepy when a guy running for president starts talking about overturning a libel law. I do see a problem with that, but does that single thing make Trump uniquely worse than the other candidates on free speech? Not by a long shot, not when Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both want to congress to make a law abridging their opposition's right to make critical remarks, books, pamphlets or videos about them.

    Here's a strange Slate article taking her to task over Citizen's United, but still qualifying that they're not happy with the decision, and in fact spills a lot of ink whining about Citizens:

    But protection for harshly disparaging political speech is the bedrock of the First Amendment. The real problem with Citizens United was not the speech itself, but the way it was funded. By admitting that her real problem with the ruling was the content of the speech it allowed, Clinton confirmed the fears of the Citizens United majority: that a limit on corporate electioneering “uses censorship to control thought.” In attempting to criticize the decision, she inadvertently proved why it might actually be right.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the.....fying.html

  • John||

    Its overturning a doctrine in libel law. And I don't think its creepy. I think it is reasonable even if I don't necessarily agree.

  • SugarFree||

    Trump didn't call for riots, he just said he thought they would happen if there was a brokered convention.

    "I think you'd have riots. I think you'd have riots," Trump said Wednesday on CNN's "New Day." "I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."

    He's canny enough not to come right out and call for them.

  • John||

    Maybe or maybe you are just engaging in confirmation bias and projection. The bottom line is he didn't call for riots. If you read what he did do as "being cagey" and really calling for riots, good for you. I can't read Trump's mind so I can't say you are wrong. But I don't see any reason to think you are right either.

    You think I worship Trump, let me ask you, is there anything about Trump you won't believe as long as it is negative? Is it possible that you are projecting a bit when you say I worship Trump? I know I don't worship Trump. But I have to wonder if maybe you are a bit obsessed with hating him

  • SugarFree||

    Your defensiveness means I was right on target. Go on, squirm and wiggle all you want.

  • John||

    I am not being defensive. I am asking a question. Name one negative accusation about Trump you don't believe? It should be simple to answer, provided there is such a thing.

  • John||

    You seem pretty defensive about being obsessed with hating him. Why is that?

  • SugarFree||

    We all know you wrote the NYPost article. You can be cute and deny it all you want.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This might be a case of your youth showing.

    We're talking about a woman who popularized the term "vast right-wing conspiracy", eliminated goodwill *in her own party* for a policy goal they've had running on decades (single-payer health care), who sparked the Citizens United decision and has been in favor of any number of awful legislative initiatives to reduce economic liberty.

    Donald Trump is definitely all of those things in the list, but he's publicly been those things for less time and with less focus and energy than Clinton has. I just don't see why that list would compel someone to look unfavorably at Trump *compared to Hillary Clinton*.

  • Vampire||

    Trump Donated money to Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and many other democrats. So If Clinton, etc. are such bad people, why then did he donate money to them? These are not the only reasons to not support Trump.

  • GILMORE™||

    Don't hold your breath.

  • waffles||

    Right. This is a lose/lose election for liberty. I know it's childish but I want the most entertaining candidate to win. That's Trump by a long shot. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • GILMORE™||

    I think its a little odd for Reason to expect greater libertarian fealty from the candidate who many libertarians seemed to have zero compunction throwing under the bus at the first sign of ideological impurity.

    - in particular i'm thinking about that Jeffrey Tucker interview... where he describes how former-Ron-people treated Paul in the aftermath of his dad's failed presidential campaign. & also maybe the 'meh' coverage he received here through most of 2015.

    It seems like you can have libertarians, or you can have politicians, but you'll rarely actually get both. The few who squeak by like Amash are rare exceptions.

  • DOOMco||

    And I'm sure if amash got more coverage, he'd fail the test.

    Seriously, he made a promise.
    I also keep my word.

  • Zeb||

    I would think more of a candidate who didn't promise to support whoever the party ends up with. But I won't hold it against him that he did what he said he would.

  • DOOMco||

    Oh i agree. I just can't fault someone for following a promise. I sure wish he didn't make the pledge, but understand why they are made. I just don't think he actually supports trump, and to think anyone who listens to him make a trump endorsement knows it's hollow.

  • AlmightyJB||

    He's always said he is a republican.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't see any reason for him not to endorse Trump.

    I wish he'd run for Governor of Kentucky instead of President. He'd be in a great place to challenge Trump if Trump wins or challenge Hillary if Trump loses.

    Spilt milk.

    Might as well come across as a leader to a party in chaos rather than another source of divisiveness. Hopefully, he comes out with more influence over the party that emerges post-Trump.

    I don't see the point of not endorsing Trump at this point. He's won the nomination. The question isn't whether the Republicans should step in dog shit anymore. The question is how to dig the Trump out of their shoes.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    I know I'm going to get beat'n up 4 this, butt:

    Rand Paul Will Endorse Donald Trump, the Least Libertarian GOP Nominee in Decades

    Economic prosperity TRUMPS everything to libertarians...including personal liberties.

    - Libertarians want Block Trades/Bitcoins, but them anonymous so that the crooks and the cronies can continue their bullshit. Let's have these, eliminate cash, and let's have complete transparencies.

    - Saw REASON.COM on a PBS discussion on Salary Transparency: REASON.COM took the "NO" position, why? It's in the best interest of companies/cronies/crooks that enjoy suckering people out of pay. The reason women make $.79 per dollar is due to the negotiation skills. And this doesn't just hold for women. Let's have Salary Transparency...This does NOT MEAN EQUAL PAY FOR ALL. It simply means we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different.

    - Libertarians are for BASIC INCOME in lieu of Safety-nets because they feel that capitalism will crash without it. Ain't that funny?

  • Zeb||

    You seem to be sort of missing the forest for the trees, there.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Thank God you're here to fight the libertarians at Reason.com. If it weren't for you, we'd be taking over the world!

    Actually, in case you haven't noticed, everyone is ignoring us. They've been ignoring us for years.

    But reading your posts, you'd think the libertarians at Reason.com were about to take the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, too.

    Emaciated, ignored, abused, accustomed to being raped by everybody, we libertarians sojourn on in our forlorn hopes, and you talk about us like we're a threat to civilization or something. What's the matter, did the pound refuse to give you more puppies to kick around?

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    "Libertarians are for BASIC INCOME in lieu of Safety-nets because they feel that capitalism will crash without it. Ain't that funny?"

    Not all libertarians support that

    "Saw REASON.COM on a PBS discussion on Salary Transparency: REASON.COM took the "NO" position, why? It's in the best interest of companies/cronies/crooks that enjoy suckering people out of pay. The reason women make $.79 per dollar is due to the negotiation skills. And this doesn't just hold for women. Let's have Salary Transparency...This does NOT MEAN EQUAL PAY FOR ALL. It simply means we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different."

    What the fuck are you even talking about?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It simply means we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different"

    It's blatant stupidity.

    That's what it means.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Libertarians are for BASIC INCOME in lieu of Safety-nets because they feel that capitalism will crash without it. Ain't that funny?"

    Not all libertarians support that

    Just libertarian peasants like Charles Murray and Milton Friedman.

  • ||

    Just to respond to one of these rather odd generalizations:

    It simply means we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different

    The trouble is that the people who make less are not generally as receptive to those "good reasons" than the people who make more are. We all know the people in the office who don't contribute, or who you would actually prefer to pay to stay home and stop fucking up other people's work, but socially speaking that is very, very difficult to run an office on that level of honesty and openness.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, different people make different salaries for different reasons.

    One of the good reasons for a lack of transparency is to keep costs down. If Person A will work for less than Person B and I need to pay Person B more to keep him, then why would I want Person A to know what Person B is making?

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    Person A is not aware of the salaries because of the lack of transparency.

    Are you afraid that Person A would quit once he/she knows she's making less? That feature, which the 'Job Creator' doesn't like, is an important component of the Free Market.

    If person X is willing to work for Less than me, I want to know about. Everyone should know about it.
    Why should prices/salaries be secret? Is this the only way a free market works? Of course not.

    If you ask me, the free market world work better for the worker

  • ||

    If person X is willing to work for Less than me, I want to know about. Everyone should know about it.

    You will, if person X does just as good of a job as you do.

    But the more common scenario, by far, is that you already know that you make more than person X because you get to work on time and get all your work done, while person X rolls in 45 minutes after you and spends most of the day on Facebook.

    But, when person X finds out that they don't make as much as you, person X is going to loudly complain, make your life hell, undermine your work efforts, and maybe sue the company.

    This scenario of published wage scales, union-style, is better for a certain kind of worker, and not the good kind.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    They can make all of the noise they want.

    And, good luck to person X hiring a lawyer and going to court on this.
    Even a contingency lawyer will have a hard time with this.

    So what Person X complains? If person X doesn't like the fact that they make less than I do, they can either work harder, become more productive, find another job etc. This is what the Free Market Is all about.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Actually, the free market is all about, well, freedom. The good (and, yes, sometimes bad, but I think that usually is far outweighed by the good) outcomes in free markets are a consequence of how humans tend to interact with each other when free to do so on their own terms. You can make a positive argument, of course, but the normative argument isn't dependent on it.

  • ||

    If person X doesn't like the fact that they make less than I do, they can either work harder, become more productive, find another job etc. This is what the Free Market Is all about.

    But the more you impose practices by force, the less the word "free" can really be applied. Why not just let some companies attract better workers by having posted wage rates? If this really is better for workers, workers will show a preference for working for that company, and it will eventually become standard practice.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Why should prices/salaries be secret?

    Because it's part of an agreement between an employee and employer, and if you are not party to it then it's none of your business unless one of them wants to divulge it to you.

  • ||

    ^ This.

    I actually did work in an office once where the wages were posted on the wall in the break room.

    It was a publishing company, but our accountant once commented that the royalties of the authors and editors weren't posted, and nor was income they got from shares in the company. He got some dirty looks from the editors.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are you afraid that Person A would quit once he/she knows she's making less? That feature, which the 'Job Creator' doesn't like, is an important component of the Free Market."

    The primary reason why I wouldn't want Person A to know what Person B is making is because then I would probably have to pay Person A more than I would otherwise.

    You see, there's this thing called profits. They're the difference between revenue and cost. Raising prices for products and services won't necessarily be met by competitors, so in price sensitive industries, entrepreneurs first rely on cutting costs to maintain profitability.

    Is any of this getting through? Paying less for things means higher profits. Paying more for things means lower profits. Having to pay people more because other people are getting paid more is bad for profits because it raises the cost of employing people.

    This is worse than explaining evolution to a creationist. I know creationists who aren't this obtuse about simple economics. I mean, there are creationists who I wouldn't have to explain the relationship between costs and profits too,

    There are plenty of other reasons not to publish salaries, as well. This is just the most obvious one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I mean, are you SHOCKED to hear that companies try to minimize their employee costs? Is that really a new idea to you?

    Are you 15 years old or something?

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    I'm a 40-50 hr a week guy.
    I'm not the 60-70hr guy.

    Also, I don't have a PhD and I'm not willing to give 110% of my life towards work.
    Also, there are co-workers that delivery more and are even more effective than me.

    I have absolutely no problems making less than any of these people.

  • Citizen X||

    You're also really, really dumb.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    Why, because I'm willing to make less money than others that put in more hours, are more educated, and are more productive than I am?

  • Citizen X||

    No. You're really dumb because that is the best description of a person with your ideas, level of communication skills, and critical thinking ability. It has nothing to do with those other things. I've known plenty of smart people who make very little money, and plenty of rich, stupid people. I've met a lot of borderline retards at the best public university in the country and a lot of geniuses who barely finished high school. I know plenty of people who use their mental acuity to avoid work, and i know a shit ton of dumb folk who work probably a lot harder than they need to.

    You're not dumb because you're uneducated and don't work very hard. You're just dumb.

  • Citizen X||

    That "because" should be italicized, not struck through. Apologies.

  • ||

    I have absolutely no problems making less than any of these people.

    But your attitude on this is very, very rare. Most people think of themselves as little gods who deserve payment merely for gracing your airspace with their presence. They do not see themselves as relatively less valuable than other people - it takes a pretty strong ego to look at your own way of doing things and say "yes, it's OK that others are valued more than I am."

    And it's precisely the people who think of themselves as little gods who are aggressively useless and carry around a tremendous sense of entitlement. These are the people who need to be kept in the dark about how much other people make.

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    Needz moar capz

  • Rhywun||

    we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different

    That's between me and my employer. There are plenty of reasons people take jobs at a salary you might disapprove of and guess what - none of them are any of your goddamn business.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    I know I'm going to get beat'n up 4 this, butt:

    Rand Paul Will Endorse Donald Trump, the Least Libertarian GOP Nominee in Decades

    Economic prosperity TRUMPS everything to libertarians...including personal liberties.

    - Libertarians want Block Trades/Bitcoins, but them anonymous so that the crooks and the cronies can continue their bullshit. Let's have these, eliminate cash, and let's have complete transparencies.

    - Saw REASON.COM on a PBS discussion on Salary Transparency: REASON.COM took the "NO" position, why? It's in the best interest of companies/cronies/crooks that enjoy suckering people out of pay. The reason women make $.79 per dollar is due to the negotiation skills. And this doesn't just hold for women. Let's have Salary Transparency...This does NOT MEAN EQUAL PAY FOR ALL. It simply means we know what others make and there better be a good reason why people at the same job are paid drastically different.

    - Libertarians are for BASIC INCOME in lieu of Safety-nets because they feel that capitalism will crash without it. Ain't that funny?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not going to beat you up, I'm just going to point out it's not so much economic prosperity we are interested in (at least from a normative point of view), but economic liberty, which is just a subset of personal liberty.

    As for a basic income, it's hardly favored by all libertarians, but to the extent that it is less disfavored than the current welfare state, it's from a personal liberty perspective (as well as an efficiency perspective). And it's not so much capitalism we are worried about with regards to social security and other entitlements, but the existence of a functioning economy.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Though it is nice that economic liberty is pretty well correlated with economic prosperity.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    I'm not an economist, but I work in Finance and I believe that if you were to give everyone $X amount, goods/service (in general) would go up by that $X.

    As well intended that it sounds, I'm not for the Basic Income.

    Milton Freedman's "Negative Income tax" sounds sounds much better as it's means-tested.

  • LynchPin1477||

    That's fine. There are lots of basic income proposals that are means tested.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I'm not an economist, but I work in Finance and I believe that if you were to give everyone $X amount, goods/service (in general) would go up by that $X."

    Explain to me how you can give "everyone" $X to be begin with.

    If "everyone" is being given, who is paying?

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    They are Skimming everyone and re-distributing.

    I just don't believe in this. I'd rather have means-tested pension and health-care. And as liberal as I am, I believe that public pensions should pay a living wage and not the ridiculous rates being paid to policemen/teachers/superintendents/etc.

    Only those that legitimately need it should get it. And, who pays for it, the people that can afford to pay for it. Not everyone.

  • ||

    Only those that legitimately need it should get it. And, who pays for it, the people that can afford to pay for it.

    But this is wherein lies an enormous problem.

    As someone who makes slightly less than exactly the national median income, I am particularly sensitive to being one of those consistently caught in this gap.

    I am not poor enough to qualify for assistance, nor am I rich enough to offer others assistance. This tends to put me in the "people that can afford to pay for it" camp, even though I can't, actually.

    IOW, this way of thinking presumes some agency that can tell "who can afford to pay" versus "those that legitimately need it."

    I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, but to summarize one of her more useful formulations, no one advocates income redistribution thinking they're going to be the ones paying more and getting less.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "They are Skimming everyone and re-distributing"

    Then everyone is not being given and your premise of good and services going up $X commensurately fails.

    Case closed.

  • mfckr||

    - Libertarians are for BASIC INCOME in lieu of Safety-nets because they feel that capitalism will crash without it. Ain't that funny?

    To my knowledge, basic income has never been a popular position among Libertarians. Those who have supported it, saw it as a way to undermine social justice arguments. Such that if one is going to have a welfare system, it might as well be one which can't be turned into a political weapon for class warfare.

    I've never seen it advanced for sake of keeping capitalism intact, or whatever.

  • buybuydandavis||

    To my knowledge, basic income has never been a popular position among Libertarians. Those who have supported it, saw it as a way to undermine social justice arguments.

    Some supporters see it as a matter of justice - they've heard of the Lockean proviso.

    As for "keeping capitalism intact", there's a decent argument for that. Increasingly now that we're hitting the inflection point on AI. As long as you have a democracy, people aren't going to be eager to vote for starving on the streets when they can vote for taking what they need.

    As for "evil looters, blah blah blah" read the Lockean proviso and realize that supporting the current system of private property means *you* are a looter.

  • Alice Bowie (is back)||

    I don't know why it published TWICE.

  • GILMORE™||

    You overloaded the "Retarded Filter". It happens.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Well that's disappointing.

  • DOOMco||

    HOW DARE HE!

  • waffles||

    Well the question for me becomes who will cause more mental breakdowns, fits of tearful rage and/or wailing and gnashing of teeth, president Clinton or president Trump?

    Trump I think. So I stand with Rand.

  • Billy Bones||

    So, today in the news cycle, we have a "Libertarian-leaning Republican" endorse a candidate he (should) diametrically oppose to show his loyalty to a dying party and a life long die-hard Republican who has worked campaigns of both Bushes, among other things, announce that she has left the Republican party and registered as a Libertarian. My take away: Mary Matalin has a set of (metaphorical) balls twice the size of Rand's. Or maybe he is just a pandering boot-licker, while she actually supports her ideological beliefs.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    Also possible: Rand Paul has a future within the party and Mary Matalin is mostly a T.V. pundit at this point who hasn't worked on a campaign since 2008.

    Matalin has nothing to lose by doing this.

  • Zunalter||

    Yea, all Rand Paul has to lose are his principles.

  • brady949||

    Shocking news, but it turns out Lindsey Graham has more principles than Rand Paul:

    Washington (CNN)Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of Donald Trump's most outspoken Republican critics, says he will not vote for either Trump or Hillary Clinton for president this year.

    Graham says in a statement Friday he "cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief."

  • Ken Shultz||

    What principle is at issue here?

    It's not like Rand wants to double the funding for the NSA.

  • DOOMco||

    And graham didn't sign anything, because he wasn't running.
    Am I taking crazy pills?!

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Uhh, maybe, because Graham did run.

  • DOOMco||

    When the pledges came around?

  • SugarFree||

    Graham did sign the pledge.

    Considering the pledge was a trap for Trump, I doubt we'll see anymore of them in the future.

  • DOOMco||

    Well, today I learned. Thanks SF.

  • SugarFree||

    No problemo.

  • Vespasian||

    I smell a re-election year calculation on Rand Paul's part ... too many Trump Chumps in his KY voting base that he needs to keep on his side for Nov re-election.

    He loses some more luster in my eyes; I'd prefer he be a vocal critic and openly say "... and I'll willingly risk my Senate re-election over my opposition to Trump."

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't begrudge him that. Rand isn't likely to do us much good if he can't stay in office.

  • Zunalter||

    But if capitulation to Trump is what is required to stay in office, what sort of good could he do in that political climate anyhow?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Let's bear in mind, Paul isn't lining up to play Trump's flunkie a la Christie.

    He's saying "Well, I guess he'd be a better president than Hillary Clinton...."

  • Zunalter||

    I guess I would question that assumption. We already know that he would say anything to anyone at anytime if he thought it would help him get elected, including contradicting himself within the same interview. We already know by his own admission that he is an enabler of corrupt politicians, including his general election opponent. We already know that he is a mendacious prick who is perfectly happy to use the power of his office to punish people who dislike him.

    The reason some would say "yea, but still..." has to do with the R after his name, but that is precisely why I think Hillary would be less of a disaster...at least Republicans would put up a token resistance to this idiocy instead gargling down whatever the Trumpster chooses on any given day.

  • conspiracygirl||

    ROFLMAO You complain that Rand will say anything to get elected, is an enabler of corrupt politicians, that he uses power to punish people -- and then you say that Killery Queen of Corruption, the pathological lying narcissist war-monger who has a body count a thousand miles long, who destroyed the women who revealed her rapist husband's predatory past, who changes her mind on policy depending on what state the next primary is in, who suddenly "evolves" on social issues right before her next campaign, who is trying to start a wart with Russia -- would be *less* of a disaster....

    Bwaahahaha.

    Back to Media Matters with you, David Brock!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    The ultimate cop out. I can't help if I'm not here can justify any behavior.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    That's right, get to the back of the political human centipede, Rand.

  • SugarFree||

    Rand is running against the openly gay mayor of Lexington. I doubt he's going to have much of a fight on his hands.

    Only if McConnell tries to fuck him will he be in any kind of trouble, and that would have been in the primary stage anyway.

  • conspiracygirl||

    He made a campaign promise that he would endorse the eventual nominee -- which could have been anyone. Had it been Carson he would be endorsing Carson. So this is no "calculated" move. He is merely keeping his promise. I realize a politician keeping his promises is so rare that almost nobody knows how to process it -- and they have to tie themselves into knots trying to explain it. They think there must surely be some sinister, nefarious motive for keeping a promise, but y'know, maybe some folks are still honest like that....

  • PapayaSF||

    There is virtually no issue where Trump's views align with libertarianism

    What's the 2nd Amendment, chopped liver? Maybe he isn't perfect there, but a hell of a lot better than Hillary.

    Also, Trump just talked about cutting regulations that hurt businesses.

    I continue to be astounded at the emphasis on eminent domain. Yeah, he's not good, but only compared to the Platonic ideal. Does anyone seriously argue that Hillary or Bernie would be more respectful of private property right? Come on.

    I should think that libertarians would also prefer to have less welfare and less government surveillance, which we could have with fewer illegal immigrants and by stopping Muslim immigration. But I know that conflicts with the sacred principle of open borders, before which all other libertarian principles must bow.....

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't see Trump's stance on the Second Amendment as being substantively different from Hillary Clinton's.

    If Trump will cave to pressure to ban "assault weapons" and Hillary isn't really coming for your shotgun or your revolver, then what's the difference between those positions in reality?

    The threat that if The Donald bans assault weapons, the establishment Republicans will turn against him? He doesn't care about that. He's more worried about appealing to suburban swing voting Democrats.

  • mfckr||

    Not really sure how you can type with a straight face that Trump's 2A positions are an echo of Hillary's, but whatever:

    http://is.gd/TweJly

    Yes, Trump is awful for many reasons. But this isn't one of them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you believe everything Presidential candidates say when they're campaigning?

    "I support the ban on assault weapons".

    ----Donald Trump, The America We Deserve

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/02.....ion-on-gun

    Somehow his stance changed once he decided to run for the Republican nomination. Surely, his stance would change again once he was in the White House. It's not like he has the gun rights Republican establishment holding his feet to the fire.

    So let's review. If Trump wouldn't get in the way of an assault weapon ban, and Hillary isn't coming after your shotgun or your revolver, then how much pf a difference is there between them, really, on that issue.

    . . . There isn't much difference at all--unless you take Trump's campaign conversion seriously. And why would you do that when there are so many other less embarrassing ways to broadcast your naivete to the world?

  • Zunalter||

    Does anyone seriously argue that Hillary or Bernie would be more respectful of private property right? Come on.

    You say that because he has an R after his name, no other reason. And while I cannot say that either of the D candidates will be "better", that is no guarantee that they are worse.

  • PapayaSF||

    Do you think progressives, including one who praised Communist food lines in the 1980s, are going to be more respectful of private property rights than a businessman, no matter how big government he may be? Get real.

  • Zunalter||

    As a businessman, he has shown only respect for HIS property "rights", and has used his money and influence wherever possible to advance his own interests, regardless of what it has meant for the other party.

    Big business is often enabled by big government, a fact repeated often by Trump when recounting personal anecdotes about his role in buying politicians.

    He is a corporatist, not a free-marketeer, and owes his success to his ability to game a corrupt political system to his advantage. To assume his business background automatically makes him more friendly to private property rights I think in his case is faulty. I have little confidence that his love for private property rights exceeds that of Hillary. Though, to be fair, it is likely to the right of Sanders.

  • bassjoe||

    "He is a corporatist"

    That right there. More specifically, he's a corporatist for HIS corporations.

  • Robert||

    Which is why I don't think he'd be so bad as POTUS, since he wouldn't have a $ stake.

  • mfckr||

    Isn't there only like, one instance where Trump attempted eminent domain?

  • PapayaSF||

    When you get lemons, make lemonade. It's Trump or Hillary. Trump is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. Present him with libertarian solutions that will boost jobs and businesses, like cutting regulations. Push a free-market replacement for Obamacare. Don't just sit around and whine and daydream about the Ideal Libertarian President. That ain't happening anytime soon. Get practical and incremental, the way the socialists did when they spent decades taking over the Democratic Party.

  • Rhombus Parallelogram, Jr.||

    There are three sides to the American political coin: Republicans are heads, Democrats are tails, and Libertarians are the edge. When the coin is flipped and it lands on our side, we'll start to make political gains.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    "Trump is a pragmatist, not an ideologue"

    I didn't know 'narcissist' started with a 'p'

  • PapayaSF||

    Those two terms are not mutually exclusive. Trump likes to win. Let's give him some policy prescriptions that will work, and thus be wins for him. That's our only hope, and it wouldn't work with Hillary: for her and nearly all Democrats, all solutions must conform to leftist ideology. It should be obvious that Trump does not think that way.

  • Richie||

    Stop sucking his dick. He's a corporatist... he exists to make corporations happy. Are you a new immigrant or something? You obviously don't get how the game is played.

  • conspiracygirl||

    Hillary is also a corporatist. So your point is...?

  • The Other Libertarian||

    Yes they are. Indulging narcissism, in inherently unpragmatic.

  • Robert||

    It's going to be Biden, the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump.

  • XM||

    I really, really wanted to like Trump. He may surprise us still in the next 6 months, but as things stand now, he's as dangerous as Clinton, especially if Sanders fan flock to him. If he wins, then we get a combination of nationalism and socialism that was unthinkable in this country.

  • Vampire||

    A good look at how willing folks are to sacrifice their liberty (and the liberty of others) to these politicians is a movie titled "Look Who's Back". It's a comedy, but has a real message to it. I don't want to spoil the movie, so I won't go into detail. It's on Netflix.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I only watch movies that feature babies voiced by Bruce Willis.

  • Zunalter||

  • JWW||

    Boo fucking hoo Robby, maybe Rand would have stood a better chance against Trump if Reason would have stopped constantly stabbing him in the back for not being a "true" libertarian.

  • Irish, Target-Bathroom Rapist||

    I like people who live in this magical alternate universe where Reason Magazine with its 50,000 subscribers can somehow cause Republican presidential candidates to fail or succeed.

    Maybe Trump wouldn't be the nominee if Reason had been harder on him. Oh, wait...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's unlikely that Reason's influence would have driven America into the loving arms of Rand. That said, it's a little rich for those who work for a magazine that crafts loving profiles of Jared Polis (or the occasional love letter to Bernie Sanders in Robbie's case), to then complain about anyone's purity or pragmatism in politics.

    If pragmatism be bullshit, then it stains the shoes of every Reason contributor at least as much as Rand's.

  • PapayaSF||

    Many seem to live in the magical alternative universe in which we can elect a libertarian president.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Soave would jerk off into his own hair if Block Yomomma declared himself Dictator for Life.

  • Citizen X||

    I hate you, Mike M, but this... this comment is kinda funny. It's been a long week.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Trump 2016!

  • waffles||

    We need to be PUNISHED and PUNISHED hard! Oh gives us the government we DESERVE!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Didn't we already get that with Obama?

  • Good Chipper||

    It's soooo Libertarian that a discussion of Rand Paul endorsing Donald Fucking Trump diverged for a while on how Gary Johnson isn't a libertarian because he's a moderate Libertarian.

    The Pauls can keep the GOP cock in their mouths for the rest of recorded history, and a good portion of our party will still pine for them to wrestle control away from someone who is actually out there busing their ass to make us nationally relevant.

  • Notorious UGCC||

  • Notorious UGCC||

    (SPOILER ALERT)

  • Richie||

    Ahhh, I can hate on Rand Paul, but then I feel like I would insult the people, specifically ones that I respect, that gave him his support for being pro-liberty.

    He is playing the dirty politics game.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    Rand: *Yawn, ah! What a great nap. Now I can get on with, wha!? I'm covered in fleas!!!

  • Richie||

    And who was responsible for the fleas?.... the media.

  • conspiracygirl||

    So keeping campaign promises is dirty politics....

    Uh huh...

  • bassjoe||

    Look. He signed that piece of paper that said he would.

  • Scottie Rock||

    Et tu, Rand? Et tu?

  • adampeart||

    At this point what difference does it make? The one good thing that can come of this is a Libertarian party candidate who, after fifty years of trying in vain, can actually break the 2% popular vote ceiling. Go McAfee!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Is this enough to end your irrational love-affair with this poseur?

  • The Other Libertarian||

    You read my mind.

  • conspiracygirl||

    Is a politician keeping a campaign promise enough to end my love affair with him...? Well, I realize that it is almost unprecedented for a politician to keep his campaign promises, and so you're all, like, "Whoaaa, what...? Is he allowed to do that...?"
    I, on the other hand, respect a man who keeps his promises. I disrespect people who refer to the act of keeping promises as "unprincipled." They're the posers -- or poseurs -- if you wish to suddenly lapse into French.

  • The Other Libertarian||

  • Richie||

    https://youtu.be/RF4Jy0I_IB0

    This is why you shouldn't talk s*!* on Rand.

  • J Neil Schulman||

    Good to know Reason is now a mouthpiece for Neocons who oppose Trump's anti-globalist foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy is closest to Ron Paul's, not surprising since in 2011 Donald Trump was tweeting complaints about the media blackout of Ron Paul's candidacy. Trump is also pledged to audit the fed. So of course libertarians will miss this and try to elect the most fascist/imperialist candidate of our time, Hillary Clinton.

  • RoninX||

    I must have missed the part where Ron Paul said we should invade Iraq and take their oil, or where he said we should kill the families of terrorists, or where he said we should use torture that was "much worse than waterboarding" on prisoners, or where he praised Vladimir Putin.

    Clinton is more of an imperialist than Trump, but Trump is more of a fascist.

  • DarrenM||

    You have to read between the lines. If that doesn't work, make it up.

  • JeremyR||

    A lot of the crazy conspiracy people like Trump because he's pro-Putin (to the point of having several Putin flunkies on his payroll as advisers) and hates China and think Trump will be the defender of the white race.

  • JeremyR||

    He should have endorsed Hillary and quoted Hamilton

    “If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”

  • IMissLiberty||

    Well, at least he's luke warm about it. One of the reasons Rand was elected is because he's more like the majority than his father is. People vote pragmatically all the time. The Sensates outnumber the iNtuitives 3 to 1.
    People who stand on principle are in the minority, and, making that strategy even less "successful," there are plenty of libertarians who don't vote, on principle, some of whom build new countries on islands and boats at sea, rather than vote with them.
    Rand is far and away better than anyone to run since his dad, so I really don't care that he's not perfect. I don't plan to worship anyone who gets elected, anyway, despite their tendencies to promise eternal life, health, and wealth. Our time would be better spent educating voters about what the alternatives are to big government and to minor gods with feet of clay.

  • SIV||

    #NeverJohnson

    GayJay's about as "libertarian" as Lindsey Graham.

  • SIV||

    (If Lindsey Graham smoked pot)

  • buybuydandavis||

    But Trump ... is just as bad, and arguably much worse, including and especially from a libercucktarian perspective
  • wootendw||

    Congress, not the President, has the Constitutional power to tax, spend, borrow and regulate. The President's only legislative powers are to propose, sign, or veto so Trump will not be able to do nor undo much domestically.

    It is foreign policy in which the President really wields power. Trump has criticized the wars of the past 25 years, wants to cut down on NATO and reduce tensions with Russia. Perhaps he will change his mind once he assumes office, but I am sick of wars and the destabilization of countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan so I would prefer an unknown Trump to a warmonger like Hillary or Bush friend Ted Cruz. We came very close to nuclear war last Fall when Turkey and the Saudis wanted to invade Syria - not to stop ISIS, but to stop the Russians from destroying ISIS.

    Please don't anyone believe that Putin would allow a President Hillary to do to him and to Russia what she and NATO did to Qadaffi and Libya without resorting to the unthinkable. With a population (145m) and $2 trillion economy that are small fractions of NATO's aggregates, the unthinkable is what we may get if Hillary becomes President. That is a lot scarier than Trump's lack of libertarianism.

  • Robert||

    So this is the year HyR blew up.

  • StreetParade||

    I was just thinking to myself the other day. You know, Daddy Bush, "I'm Bob Dole", Baby Bush, the Maverick and Mittens - what great Freedom Fighters and defenders of American freedoms they were!! Not to mention Pastor Ted. Why just a few months ago, Pastor Ted was defending the right of free speech and freedom of assembly at Trump's Chicago rally. Oh, wait....no he wasn't. He blamed Trump and his supporters for the violence caused by leftists. And the rest of these miscreant Republican nominees? Warmongers one and all!!

    What "foundation" pays the bills at "Reason"? Just curious.

  • DOOMco||

    ...the reason foundation?

  • TKList||

    Trump can not make America great again. Trump is a billionaire because he has mastered crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.

    Trump wants his own version of big government.

    Trump says anything that is beneficial to his goals at the moment in time that he says it. Which means what he says will always be changing to fit his current wants and needs.

    Trump's next book should be titled "The Art of BS."

    Republicans are so angry they are willing to nominate an authoritarian Democrat as their Republican nominee for president.

    #neversanders #neverclinton #nevertrump

    #neverbernie #neverhillary #neverdonald

    Here is what Trump knows about economics:
    1. Bribe politicians.
    2. Bribe union leaders.
    3. Fleece banks with bankruptcy laws.
    4. Build things by using steps 1, 2 and 3.

    Celebrity trumps logic.
    Celebrity trumps policy.
    Celebrity trumps intelligence.
    Celebrity trumps substance.
    Celebrity trumps money.
    Celebrity trumps campaign ads.
    Celebrity trumps facts.
    Celebrity trumps reporting.
    Celebrity trumps reality.
    Brought to you by the public school education system.

    40% of Republicans will either stay home, vote for the Libertarian Party or some other party.

    There is no point in voting between two Democrats.

    The likely nomination of Trump is a reflection of the poor education our children are receiving in our failing public schools and the lower standard of education our college graduates are receiving.

  • TillyWilliamss||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

    Go to tech tab for more detail... http://www.earnmore9.com

  • Chrissycrunch||

    Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. I have no idea why he continues to be associated with that party or even loosely defined set of principles. He's a Republican, just like his father is.

  • conspiracygirl||

    Learn political nomenclature and desist from conflating the names of ideologies with the names of political parties.

    Yes, we all know that Rand does not have the Magical L with Fairy Dust behind his name, but the Libertarian Party is composed mostly of hacks who are no more principle-driven than the anti-war left who hated Bush's Wars but loved Obama's -- so the LP's opinions are worthless. They are uninterested in expanding liberty. It is only their membership coffers they seek to expand.

    If the LP ever learns to place ideas ahead of party affiliation then the LP could actually be taken seriously when it claims to be the Party of Principle. As of now, it is just the Party of Everyday Garden Variety Partisan Hackery.

  • dconlaw1||

    I hate that word, "conflating" . . . as well as "proactive" and "advocate for" (instead of just "advocate") and "clearly" (so often used when what follows is anything but.)
    I'm not sure why, but if part of the reason is the often pretentious tone of its users, then add conspiracygirl to the database.

  • conspiracygirl||

    Perhaps a remedial vocabulary course is in order if you find that everyday words disturb your chi and that Trump-speak is more on your level.

    How about you stretch up instead of suggesting that I dumb down...?

  • Chrissycrunch||

    And he was never going to win the nomination with Justin Timberlake's Ramon Noodle haircut from 2000.

  • ammythomas444||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

    Go to tech tab for more detail... http://www.Reportmax90.com

  • elizabethabellino||

    I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ============ http://www.richi8.com

  • Andra Renner||

    I'm making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.... Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  • Andra Renner||

    I'm making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.... Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  • Hank Phillips||

    Republican? --check.
    Willing to coerce women? --check
    Claims to be standing at Armageddon and Fighting for the Lawerd? --check
    What Republican wouldn't endorse their candidate? Randall Paul is a girl-bullying Republican, not a libertarian.

  • conspiracygirl||

    You sound like a left feminist who didn't get a trigger warning and desperately needs a safe space to restore his chi.

    Girl-bullying, huh...? Yeah, well girls aren't as fragile as lefties need to believe. They don't need your victim culture and they can take care of themselves.

  • conspiracygirl||

    It maybe bizarre for a libertarian to endorse-slash-suggest that the turd sandwich Trump is less noxious than the pathologically lying, serial war-mongering Clinton, who must be kept as far away from the red button as possible....

    But even more bizarre is a politician who actually keeps his campaign promises....

  • Cytotoxic||

    What an idiot. His chances of re-election were shaky enough with The Trump Effect dragging down GOP candidates everywhere now he's going to war the stench openly? Fool.

  • jsguitargeek||

    Rand Paul (apparently) is an asshole. Kissing up to the most dangerous con-artist in America is no one's patriotic duty.

  • julieaguerrero||

    $89 an hour! Seriously I don't know why more people haven't tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…And i get surly a chek of $1260......0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ✒✒✒✒✒✒ http://www.nypost55.com

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    The last major party candidate that looked anything like a "libertarian" was Barry Goldwater who got his ass kicked by Great Society, Viet Nam warrior LBJ. And I'm old enough to remember. Trump may be a total asshole but less "libertarian" than Bushes I & II, McCain, Romney et al ? Seriously? You're just makin' shit up and making yourself look silly.

  • dconlaw1||

    Right on!

  • KatherineFlynn||

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

    Read more on this web site============ http://www.earnmore9.com

  • KatherineFlynn||

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

    Read more on this web site============ http://www.earnmore9.com

  • KatherineFlynn||

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

    Read more on this web site============ http://www.earnmore9.com

  • Jessica6649||

    I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now.see this sitewww.social36.com

  • dconlaw1||

    Robby's personal bias infects the premise that Trump is as bad as Clinton. Two main examples are: she's more interventionist & she prefers more gov't in our lives.
    Not even Reason -- and certainly no elected republican -- has shown the huevos to call for leech nations like So. Korea and Germany to shoulder more of the high cost of the defense umbrella, funding of which adds to our $20 trillion deficit.
    And sorry Reason/Nick G., you don't speak for me in advocating open borders. They cannot coexist with the regulatory state that, guess what Robby, HRC loves and The Donald hates.

  • annejfernandez||

    Make 7500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website.....

    -------------------- http://www.richi8.com

  • SparktheRevolt||

    I see my Pander Paul nickname was appropriate.

  • Kimberly Waldron||

    I'm making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.... Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  • Wendy R||

    Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ============== http://www.social36.com

  • MadeleineBall||

    Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last friday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. I work through this link,
    Go to tech tab for work detail.========== http://www.earnmore9.com

  • White Hispanic||

    Paul has integrity. He already promised to support the eventual nominee.
    Trump is more conservative than Hillary, he will not wage endless wars as the Clintons will continue to bomb and attack muslim nations. Trump favors a more libertarian foreign policy, much closer aligned to Rand Paul.

  • ||

    I'm making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.... Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK===== http://www.cashapp24.com/

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Rand Paul Will Endorse Donald Trump, the Least Libertarian GOP Nominee in Decades
    'I've always said I will endorse the nominee," said Rand Paul.

    Gee, and to think I had the utmost respect for Rand Paul.
    Come to find out he's a real republican after all.
    The shame of it all is that he had great promise.
    It just goes to show how naive I really am.

  • REMant||

    Matalin surprised me with her clear view of the issues.

  • ahmed kamel||

    Matalin surprised me with her clear view of the issues.

    egypt
    almasdar

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online