Sunday, March 24, 2013

Is Rand Paul a Libertarian?

To the many commenters in previous posts who state that Rand Paul does not consider himself a libertarian  and I should stop attacking him for not being a hardcore libertarian because he is stated he is not a libertarian, yes, there have been times that Rand has declared he is not a libertarian. But you guys have really not been paying attention to how much Rand dances around, I am really tempted to start calling him Fred Astaire Rand.

Here he is proclaiming himself a libertarian-Republican. Try doing that dance some day after telling the media that the libertarian tag is an albatross.

Look, Rand wants to be president, that's why he will take any position on anything, including whether he is libertarian. More important, slick mainstream media, like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity label him as libertarian to co-opt the libertarian movement. This is why it is very important to smash Rand everytime he takes a non-libertarian position.  Rand is not Nancy Pelosi, no one is going to mistake her for a libertarian, but when Rand proposes a phony "privatization" of the TSA, it has to be made clear that he is not taking a libertarian position when he is doing so.

Jeff Tucker may write:
To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Paul’s various heresies, you can save your bandwidth.
But that is not EPJ. Tucker may want to close his eyes and stick his fingers in his ears so he can promote a Rand Paul that doesn't exist, but that is not going to happen at EPJ.

41 comments:

  1. ...which is why I read EPJ more than Tucker. Keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron Paul is in the arena fighting for the best position, while, you, Mr. Wenzel, are in the stands
    and like a blabber-booer jeer at him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Paul and Wenzel are in the same 'arena'; the arena of ideas.

      Rand Paul is yearning to enter quite a different arena...

      Delete
    2. One more thing I should add...

      Rand Paul can end the 'confusion' at any time. He can simply do what his father did.

      He can identify what he does, and what he does not stand for. In specific and definable terms. Most of the criticism is caused by his failure to do so. If anyone is to vote for anyone, they should know who they are voting for beyond the shadow of a doubt. I never vote, I wrote in Ron Paul and voted in the primary for one reason; I knew what I was voting for.

      Delete
    3. Lots of us are sick of standing out in the weather to write "Ron Paul" on a ballot paper. The reality is to get a seat at the table libertarians will have to compromise.

      I see the great strength of libertarianism not as it's philosophic purity, rather in its focus on practical outcomes. To expect a candidate to stand up, reject almost every element of the national belief system people have been conditioned to accept over 100 years and win an election is not practical. As the monstrosity of government has grown over time, so it's going to be a staged process to move to wind it back with the public on side.

      I would vote for Rand Paul because I believe he is the right "libertarian" for the job at hand. I also believe his compromises are for the reasons explained above, not because he's a "statist". You know that frog in the saucepan we are always talking about? It takes some time for the water to cool down, too.

      Delete
    4. I have still not seem one comment that demonstrats epj has made an error. Only decenting commenters who choose to attack by insult.

      Delete
    5. Re-read your post and tell me that your not a stasist based on those words. Obama uses the same rhetoric

      Delete
    6. I have still not seem one comment that demonstrats epj has made an error. Only decenting commenters who choose to attack by insult.

      Delete
    7. This is why most libertarians don't vote. Compromising with evil is a pointless endeavor. Better to outright reject the premise on which evil rests. Far better for the soul.

      Delete
    8. Some just don't get that tjm *correction *

      Delete
  3. Great post and I don't see why this should be an issue for people, especially libertarians of all. Imagine if Rothbard was shunned every time he pointed out someone else's half ass political stands. Sorry to say this, but if you are in politics get ready to be vetted by those you attempt to co-opt. There's nothing wrong with pointing out when some one is 'Rand Standing' for some votes.

    You can earn those votes Rand.

    Libertarians should live by a motto which ends the conflation of ideas and candidates:

    "I don't always vote, but when I do... I vote for freedom."

    Otherwise, you probably shouldn't vote. If you do - you have no right to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rossini & Wenzel,

    Excellent work. Adam Kokesh offers visual evidence and echos points you make here in your post. As a Conservative, Rand's sole role may be to corral as many "libertarians" as Rothbard describes in the citation by Barcelo in an earlier post. Thanks for your great efforts! http://www.dailypaul.com/278697/r3volution-logo-used-at-cpac-ronald-reagan-dinner

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not say you are wrong for pointing out where Rand is wrong and selling out. I do say you are wrong by going way out of your way to smash Rand on petty little things.

    The question is not just about Rand being a non libertarian it's also what is the alternative. For now we have a ruling political class. What least of evils do you want to sit on that chair? I'd rather have Rand then the next obama/bush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about we get rid of the fucking chair? Or at least quit obsessing about it?

      Delete
    2. I said this on the last post, but wasn't one of the main jabs at potential Romney voters 'why vote for the lesser of two evils'?

      Politics is a losing game because it's based on government. Libertarian effort in politics, at least those seeking to effect change through the harnessing of political power, don't do the damage they hope for. You can't fight government with government, evil with evil.

      Ron Paul made the biggest contribution to the modern day libertarian movement by pointing out it was never about being president and ending the reign of tyranny by finally capturing the throne of power... No, you'll just corrupt the individual who sits. The political chair is Tolkein's Ring of Power. Ron Paul pointed out this is about ideas.

      Ideas effect change.

      Delete
    3. Dude, that's not a chair, and when you're looking up from the cesspit all the asses look alike.

      Delete
    4. Chris, my point is not so much that having Rand in there will do any good yet having someone else in there would be so much worse.
      I agree that the truth in ideas is what essentially will bring about change. I simply don't see the fruit in placing so much effort to bashing Rand. I welcome his presidency over a more insidious person then he.
      To the other delightful comments: Yes obviously none would be best but sorry to break it to you but we are not there yet. We have to keep spreading these ideas as Chris points out but in the meantime it is best to have someone in this chair that is the least destructive.

      Delete
    5. How do 'we' get rid of the chair Ed? Saying that 'we should just get rid of government' is like saying that one single man should 'just' beat up a hundred men that don't like him. It's not that easy, most people LIKE government and would side with them if we ever tried to 'rise up' against it. So 'let's just get rid of them' is about the most intellectually lazy thing you can say.

      Delete
    6. Agree Dave. These guys need to deal with reality, if they want to actually change things. If not then I guess their philosophical ideas are just a hobby.

      Delete
    7. @ Dave and @ Luke: No, you guys are the intellectually lazy ones, because you can't think of any other way to work for liberty other than by fighting for the imperial presidency. When I say "get rid of the chair," I mean that as the eventual goal, rather than having, as the eventual goal, "our man" in the "chair."

      So, rather than giving you my bucket list of non-political means for working towards liberty, I challenge you to think: If politics weren't an option, how would you work towards a libertarian society?

      Political methods are inherently unlibertarian. So get out of the libertarian grammar school and adopt the voluntaryist maxim that "if one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves." Or stick to "by any means necessary," but stop calling yourself a libertarian.

      Delete
    8. You are trying to play with cards you have not yet been dealt. Politics is the biggest way to influence society. I am not concerned with my personal life and that isn't the topic at hand. I try to mimic Christ in my personal life knowing politics won't be perfect. Generalizing a person rather than addressing individual issues will keep everyone out of your libertarian religion and it will keep it out of the mainstream like it has been. yes Ed you are a better libertarian than me, congrats you get nothing.

      Delete
    9. A nice quiet conscience on my deathbed, is all I hope to get out of the philosophy of liberty.

      Delete
    10. @Ed, you assume much. Who said anyone is going to fight for it? I'm basically just saying why place all this effort here on Rand, it's ridiculous.
      There are plenty of things many people should be doing to advance liberty outside of politics but what happens when everyone is doing that they put some draconian laws in place that make a business /social practice you are advancing worse off with more regulation etc.? The people who want to control your lives should be fought in their own game and outside of it.

      Delete
    11. Being a good example seems to be the hardest thing to do. It might be the most effective way to spread the message of liberty and self determination.

      Delete
  6. Fair post Bob, & as reformed wrote "that's why I read EPJ more than Tucker", I wholeheartedly agree with. The lesser of two evils as others have alluded to is a bit distressing, one worries about throwing the baby out with the bath water though. I accept that Bob is a staunch libertarian/Austrian and isn't here to coddle anyone, but personally I think Rand is a logical progression toward said goals. So I won't try to defend Rand in terms of the libertarian/Austrian movement here anymore, but think it would be wise to have some positive post's about him for the things he's good on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I recently watched Rothbard's speech "the 6 stages of libertarianism", in which he describes how being co-opted is great for the libertarian movement, because it means we can hold their feet to the fire on the libertarian issues politicians are suddenly taking on, and, as Rothbard puts it (somewhat sarcastically):

    "We can keep demanding more and more until the State just goes away"

    Of course, this doesn't mean we don't call them out, quite the opposite: it's essential that we do.

    Thanks to Bob and Chris for being some of the few lonely voices brave enough to criticize Paul the Lesser.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good points, Bob. I for one never considered Rand as libertarian. I fully agree that the Republicans are attempting to redefine what libertarianism is and for that I will stand with you on exposing the frauds.
    Reagan did this and maybe the neo-cons are trying to pull a fast one again. Keep fighting the good fight!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not a Libertarian, I am a Christian, and having said that, please consider that Rand Paul may be a psychopath; these individuals are chameleons; while not having multiple personality disorder, they do manifest different persons, depending on the need to manipulate and control others; the socially adept ones have charm, but beware it is only superficial; their victims often relate, "he seems like such a charming chap".

    My experience from living in the inner city, is that there three types of these predators: one, the bear, who is loud, rummages through smelly and rotten stuff, and intimidates; two, the lion, who has a mane, that is preeminence, as well as a territory that he manages, and is a charmer, busybody and big mouth; three, the leopard, who lives in the shadows, and hunts with stealth at dusk, literally pouncing on his prey, taking them up into the trees, and crushing and ripping them to death. By the way the Beast Regime of Revelation 13:1-4, which is replacing the Milton Friedman Banking Regime, has characteristics of all three of these animals; God has designed it to be an invincible predator.


    Abuse Sanctuary Blog relates April Wilkinson writes Psychologist explains the psyche of psychopaths. Dr. Sue Stone is a clinical psychologist at the Citizen Potawatomi Nation in Shawnee, a position she's held since January. Although her work here is in general psychology and therapy, her specialty area is psychopathy, and she came from three years' work at the Department of Corrections, doing criminal court evaluations, consulting on capital murder cases and more.

    There are people functioning in society who exhibit various degrees of psychopathic behavior in their daily lives, she said. That makes the term psychopath a relative one, but there are definite characteristics of such people, Stone said.

    Psychopaths demonstrate antisocial behavior and an aggressive narcissism, they use people through charm, intimidation or violence, she said.

    "They have a parasitic lifestyle, they live off people. Their whole mindset is domination over other people," she said. "Psychopaths are not necessarily criminal in their activities, but they are attracted to positions of power. They have no anxiety about their behavior.

    There also is a lot of thrill-seeking with psychopathic behavior, Stone said. Over time, there will be an escalation of their behavior because they've gotten sensitized to a certain act, but then have to "up the ante" to capture the thrill they seek, she said.

    "Psychopaths have a need for recognition, not just a need for attention," she said. "They have a sense of being invincible, of 'I can outsmart you.' They're taken in by their own narcissism. It's almost like a game."

    A psychopathic individual can be a chameleon and learn to act a certain way. That advances their opportunity to engage in certain behaviors because who would suspect?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like EPJ is to economic blogs, www.thelastpsychiatrist.com is my favorite independent blog observing, tracking and commenting on the epidemic of psychopathy and narcissism in our media and culture.

      Delete
  10. Compared with the likes of McCain, Graham, Obama, and Clinton, Rand Paul is infinitely better. He has always said he's not a Libertarian. OK by me, I'm willing to back an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But is he really infinitely better? That would be Ron Paul. It seems to me Rand Paul is merely marginally better. And although 95% statism is more comfortable than 100% statism, it's still statism. The lesser evil is still evil.

      Maybe we should just let the 100% statists finish sinking the ship. That would clear the stage for real alternatives, not just kinda-sorta-favoring-freedom-in-the-abstract Republicans.

      Delete
  11. It obviously makes sense to quote Tucker's full statement in this context ... lest somebody think that there is a particular agenda being sought.

    "To all people who are sending me evidence of Rand Paul's various heresies, you can save your bandwidth. I'm not interested in saint making or witch burning. I'm only interested in one thing: progressive reductions of the role of all government power in people's lives all the way to zero if possible. Whatever brings that about, in whatever sector it happens, and whether it happens slowly by steps or all in one fell swoop, I'm for it. I really don't care who or what makes a contribution to this end or how it comes about, so long as it is ethical and it actually achieves the aim of human liberation, the mother of all progress, order, and higher civilization."

    It seems to me that this is entirely consistent with Rothbard's opinion on politics and the state. Care to disagree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Joseph. It seems obvious now that Wenzel is on a witch hunt. He is correct some of the time but to often he will take things out of context and put a slant on it.

      Delete
  12. Rothbard regularly voted for the lessor of two evils (even LBJ over Goldwater!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's awesome that EPJ is holding rand up to a plum line libertarian microscope! I mean, if he wins, odds are he won't fair any better than Reagan or even Jefferson. But usually they sell out after they win (although I can see how rand might need to suck up for rep party/fox news support)... So maybe, if Rand IS a deep down Ron Paul's son, he will do the opposite of every other president in history and pretend to sell out but then pull a fast one and save the country. Highly doubtful, but its our only shot at fixing this thing without a collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wenzel doesn't give a shit. He has the brain of an infant, which is why he obsesses over dumb shit. He is a joke. Tucker knows it, which is why he won't give Wenzel the time of day. Anyway, word will get out. For sure.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just one time Wenzel respond to someone's objections to all the bull shit you post. You are a fraud. If you could, you would.

    ReplyDelete