Friday, July 20, 2012

Does Rand Paul Think Ron Paul Supporters Will Become Rand Supporters?

He sure is acting as though they will.

CNN reports:
..Sen. Rand Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul, has some optimistic advice for his father's ardent supporters.

Asked about the libertarian political movement that has grown up around his father in the 2008 and 2012 presidential election cycles, the Kentucky senator told CNN Thursday that his father has had "an enormous effect." The younger Paul noted that there are now congressional candidates running around the country that were inspired by his father "and some of them are winning [in some GOP primaries]."...

Sen. Paul also pointed out that his father's supporters have "taken over some of the apparatus of the Republican Party in Nevada, Iowa, different places, Maine."

"So I think there will be a long lasting influence," continued the younger Paul, "I think he has encouraged a lot of people to participate, and what I keep telling them is don't give up on the party because the Democratic Party has a lot of different interests and they all stay in the Democratic Party and I think they have influence."

After pointing out that libertarians have sometimes preferred to associate themselves with political parties other than the GOP, the staunchly fiscal conservative lawmaker said "There just isn't much historical evidence that third parties are going to win in our country . . . . But I just think we can have a big influence in the Republican Party."...

"I also think there are certain areas of the country where Republicans cannot win or don't seem to be able to win – California, New England. Whereas a little different Republican, a libertarian Republican – a little bit less aggressive [on] foreign policy, maybe a little bit more socially tolerant and still fiscally conservative – I think could win in places like Maine, Massachusetts, places like that," explained the younger Paul.
Rand "a little bit less aggressive [on] foreign policy"? Libertarians want the US to completely stop the expanding empire. They want the US to maintain friendly relations with countries around the world, but to refrain from meddling in the domestic disputes of other countries. That's a lot less aggressive, as in, not aggressive at all.

And, calling libertarians "socially tolerant" tends to miscast the libertarian bedrock, which is the non-aggression principle. For example, libertarians would be against gay marriages, because they are not in favor of government sanction of any marriages. A simple "social tolerant" view could be one in favor of gay marriage if one does not concede, as libertarians do, that marriage should not be a government designed contract and that government should have nothing to do with marriages.

28 comments:

  1. One thing that will happen from the Libertarian movement is that it will erode the two party system from the outside. There is no saving the political and governmental setup as it exists today and there is no point in trying. The BEST thing that will happen from the Libertarian movement is that it will offer people a peaceful and liberating direction to move after the present system falls apart of destroys itself which is inevitable if not imminent. Unfortunately for Rand, he'll go with it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But I just think we can have a big influence in the Republican Party."

    You voted for sanctions against Iran, and endorsed a fascistic warmonger who wants Romneycare, is a proponent of the police state, does not truly support gun rights, and does not want to end the Fed.

    There is no "we", Rand "the libertarian label is an albatross around my neck" Paul.
    There is us, and there is you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup.

      Rand...if you think we are going to support you then welcome to self delusion city. Man he's got to be full of himself if he hasn't seen the reaction to his statist views and actions.

      Nor will we support imperialist warmongers and police state advocates.

      Delete
  3. Thanks for defining libertarian for us and letting us know that it has to be what you believe and nothing else, and that any one who holds a deviant view cannot be considered libertarian at all. I think Rand Paul is right to expect that most of those who supported his father would support him as well since most pro-Paul sites are not as dogmatic as this one. But I do not see how Rand's expectation is manifested in the quotations you cited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for being a moron and just following another statist maggot.

      Yeah..."dogmatic" Are you really THAT stupid? Yeah, fuck liberty. Who cares about that? That's being "dogmatic". Let's just throw it all away and follow another statist.

      Maybe you don't give a crap about principles. We do. Go somewhere else.

      Idiot...

      Hypocrites like you make me sick.

      Delete
    2. We're not defining it for you. We're defining it for the sake of actual libertarians.

      Someone has to define it, otherwise people who don't even understand what the word means will run roughshod on it (just like they have with the word "liberal", which once used to belong to what are currently called libertarians) and water it down to the point of merely being synonymous with a specific kind of Republican voting sheep.

      The word actually means something. It is not up for endless debate where the limits lie, and it is not subject to a popularity contest what the word should mean. It is amazing this needs to be pointed out, considering how utterly meaningless the word "conservative" has become thanks to all kinds of people adopting the word while understanding increasingly less of what it is supposed to stand for.
      If you don't understand what i'm talking about, ask Ron Paul. He can tell you.

      No, Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He has actually ADMITTED IT HIMSELF!!! What more do you need?
      You cannot vote for measures, like he did, which are basically the starting shot of another aggressive war, and endorse statist evil personified, and still be a libertarian just because a bunch of acolytes cannot let go of the fact that you aren't.

      Finally, the concept of "deviating views" making you a non-libertarian is a baseless argument, as there are plenty of disagreements within libertarian thought about complex issues like abortion or intellectual property, for example.
      But yes, there are also issues where there is a dividing line where you cross over into non-libertarian land. How could you not understand this, and still think the word has any meaning? Do you think it would, and ought to, stop precisely where your own specific limits lay? How about the next guy, just a little less radical than you, arguing with you that you are claiming he isn't a libertarian when he thinks he is? See the slippery slope? With your insistent apologetics for Rand Paul no matter what he says or does, you are turning the concept into a no man's land; a club which invites anyone provided they are merely a little less statist than the establishment of the time. According to this way of thinking, libertarianism's definition will constantly change with the times. A century from now, if the U.S. is totalitarian, then merely the suggestion to return to 2074 standards of government would make you a "libertarian". Nonsense.

      Let the word 'minarchist' define what the minimal demands are of a libertarian. And then realize Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran, and endorsed a man who couldn't be any more unlibertarian; he FAILS the test. Period.
      If you think otherwise, then the word libertarian means nothing but whatever you want it to mean.

      Just accept the fact that you are probably a paleo-conservative, and stop trying to fit yourself, like a square into a circle, into a currently popular and oft-used word when you support guys like Rand Paul.

      Either way, don't expect people who know there is a proper definition to the word, and hold people to that, to allow you or others to get away with trying to water it down to irrelevancy without calling you or others out on it.


      "I think Rand Paul is right to expect that most of those who supported his father would support him as well."

      The degree to which this is true (which is doubtful), is the degree to which they are not libertarians.
      You may not agree with this. I would say "tough luck". Because we'll keep saying it.

      Delete
    3. Hey, why not work to see the walls only 5 feet thick instead of ten and topped with farm barbed wire instead of razor wire and the guards just equipped with tasers instead of machine guns.

      Delete
    4. @ Tony,

      That was about as well said as anything I have read in any comment section anywhere. Absolutely to the point and rock solid in its content. Thank you for that comment.

      Delete
    5. Yes, libertarians do disagree on abortion and other issues so why shouldn't they disagree on gay marriage? Why is it that one issue should disqualify one as a libertarian? Indeed, what is it that defines libertarian in the first place? That, itself, is part of what is up for debate.

      I don't care if you want to call me a paleo-conservative or whatever. That is not the point. It is the principles, not the word, that are at issue. It is one thing to say, "I disagree with so-and-so." It is quite another to say, "I disagree and this disqualifies so-and-so as a libertarian."

      If we are going to disqualify Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, Justin Amash, Mike Lee and others from the liberty movement, then I think we have to say that that movement has accomplished absolutely nothing so far and has absolutely no future.

      Indeed, this is exactly what Rothbard called "sectarianism." It is the sum total of a person's positions, not ideological purity, that define the position. Neither Rand Paul nor anyone else is going to win, or even affect the debate much, from a narrow sectarian position. What has the Libertarian Party accomplished, and they are far more flexible than the views expressed here? Why does the Von Mises Institute post all these arguments among its members if these issues are settled for all time?

      I have no objection to someone saying, "I disagree for the following reasons." But I do have a problem with someone saying, "That person is wrong because he doesn't conform to libertarian dogma on this point."

      Delete
    6. Part 1 of my response:

      "Yes, libertarians do disagree on abortion and other issues so why shouldn't they disagree on gay marriage?"

      If you can't see the difference between aggression and peaceful, consenting adults wanting to get married and not doing any harm, then you've neatly proven my point.
      The only way to oppose gay marriage from a libertarian perspective, is to oppose ALL marriage.

      "Indeed, what is it that defines libertarian in the first place? That, itself, is part of what is up for debate."

      I'll let the above be a testament to my point that you don't even know what the word stands for, and therefore can’t be taken seriously.
      You may as well call yourself a leprechaun, claiming that there is, or should be, a debate over what a leprechaun is.

      "I don't care if you want to call me a paleo-conservative or whatever. That is not the point. It is the principles that are at issue."

      Precisely. And you prove again and again you don’t understand the principles by acting as an apologist for Rand Paul, and by not understanding that the word libertarian must be connected to a set of principles, and not be endlessly stretchable to fit your own deviations from that set of principles.

      "If we are going to disqualify Rand Paul and others from the liberty movement, then I think we have to say that that movement has accomplished absolutely nothing so far..."

      Ron Paul is a libertarian, and has achieved more through principles, than the line-up you mentioned will ever achieve through compromise. You only have to look at the amount of people Ron Paul has converted, and the following he’s generated. Without Ron Paul's consistency, the line-up you mentioned would be a bunch of totally anonymous wannabe's, instead of just wannabe's that are riding Ron Paul's popularity.
      Compromises have turned a constitutional Republic into a warmongering, big government empire.

      Delete
    7. Part 2 of my response.


      "Indeed, this is exactly what Rothbard called "sectarianism." It is the sum total of a person's positions, not ideological purity, that define the position."

      Oh please. Ron Paul proves anarcho-capitalists are not necessarily shunning the political process. It doesn't mean you get to vote for or support just anybody and still retain credibility.
      Rothbard himself had a pure idea of what a libertarian is, regardless of his ideas about strategy. You on the other hand want to make the definition of libertarianism "up for debate". Rothbard would have destroyed you for that.

      "Neither Rand Paul nor anyone else is going to win, or even affect the debate much, from a narrow sectarian position."

      Ron Paul has clearly already affected the debate purely through a consistent method. It is the rest that has achieved absolutely nothing for the cause.
      Your idea of "winning" is related to a position of political power and compromise with evil. Mine is of a long-term allegiance to principles and truth on which to build a consistent counter-political movement that will at some point reach a critical mass, forever ending the state's legitimacy.

      "What has the Libertarian Party accomplished, and they are far more flexible than the views expressed here?"

      Thanks for proving my point.
      Luckily we have the non-flexible Ron Paul to show how more can be achieved in five years, than the Libertarian Party has in over 30 years.

      "Why does the Von Mises Institute post all these arguments among its members if these issues are settled for all time?"

      You are mistaking genuine arguments within the libertarian movement, from arguments that are made by non-libertarians who want to make the definition "up for debate", to the point where even endorsement of state aggression is not a problem.

      "I have no objection to someone saying, "I disagree for the following reasons." But I do have a problem with someone saying, "That person is wrong because he doesn't conform to libertarian dogma on this point."

      Great. I am a libertarian that is for committing genocide. You can't tell me i'm not a libertarian just because i don't conform to libertarian dogma. I just happen to disagree with you.

      Delete
    8. Since when did Ron Paul become an anarcho-capitalist? His stated positions differ little from the Tea Party on domestic issues although, admittedly, many Tea Party figures have failed to abide by those principles.

      But why should we equate libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism? The term was originally used by Left. It is this equation that is debate killing.

      I have no fear of Rothbard. His foundational ethics is nearly incoherent. You cannot base a political ethic on self-ownership. Rothbard immediately admits that children are not capable of self-ownership. By inference, mentally incompetent adults and disabled adults would fall into the same category. But that makes up nearly half the population if not an outright majority. What kind of ethic leaves out half the population? They are not even reduced to slavery. They are simply disregarded.

      Rothbard wants to start with Robinson Crusoe as if we all had his abilities. But at least he is consistent on one point, his Robinson Crusoe has amnesia. The real Robinson Crusoe had many abilities. But he learned those abilities from others. He also had tools and weapons made by others.

      So Rothbard accepts that Crusoe has amnesia and he admits that for Crusoe, "all knowledge must be learned by him." How much can we reasonably expect that to be? Close to nothing! We have examples of that sort. They are called "feral children," and they are scarcely human. Unless discovered at a very early age, they cannot learn language. They do not have fingernails. They have claws like other animals that have to burrow and dig for their food.

      The simple fact is that all humans are born into complete dependency and most remain in states of mutual dependency for their entire lives. The utterly self-sufficient and autonomous individual that Rothbard bases his ethics on simply does not exist. Rothbard begins his analysis with a caracature of human nature and this misunderstanding renders his "natural law" completely worthless and meaningless. And this is why anarcho-capitalism, though valuable as a critique, in not a coherent alternative to statism.

      Delete
  4. Rand Paul is solid. The liberty movement is growing and he is part of it.

    Last night I attended the annual Idaho Freedom Foundation banquet. Judge Andrew Napolitano had kind words to say about Romney and seemed to suggest he would support him. Will I vote for Romney? No.

    But does that mean that Judge Nap is a sellout? No.

    Sometimes being strategic and pragmatic is appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hans Hoppe has incredible views that I mostly agree with. To be a liberarian means to believe in non-agression. You do not have to necessarily tolerate things you don't agree with. For instance, small persecuted traditional Catholic communities, who surely don't agree with gay marriage, do not have to welcome gay people into their communities. I would bet my life that traditonal Catholics would never initiate violence unless it was self-defense. But to preserve their beliefs and culture, they must, by necessity, refuse to admit people who live a lifestyle that is anathema to their beliefs. That is why local control is best, and variety will allow people to live in a community that accepts them. For gays, San Francisco and Provincetown, MA immediately come to mind. But the wider world is accepting anything and everything as long as it is "nice." You can be a back-stabbing liar, as long as you do it in a "nice" way. This is the modern world. Speaking truth today is a heroic and revolutionary act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course a Catholic community does not have to accept homosexual into their community. But how does Hoppe define "community"? I recall him using words like "remove", which is logical only provided homosexuals would be trespassing on private property.
      The only thing any one person or community can do is make decisions relating to their own property.

      Delete
    2. Yes, that is what Hoppe is referring to. There's no reason to believe otherwise when he is so vehemently against initiation of coercion.

      Delete
    3. The reason i had to believe otherwise, from what i recall, is his insistence that a libertarian must be a conservative.

      If the non-aggression principle and property rights are correctly followed, then it is nonsense to suggest that libertarians need to be anything other than libertarian.

      When he uses the word "remove" and really is just referring to trespassing, why single out homosexuals or other non-conservative elements? Doesn't removing people who trespass go for anybody regardless who they are?
      So yes, i did have reason to believe otherwise.

      Delete
  6. @Anon 10:14 - "Sometimes being strategic and pragmatic is appropriate."

    Yep, sure has paid off so far... With anymore compromising, I'm not sure I could stand all that liberty! /sarc

    By definition, compromising *means* unprincipled.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The non-lunatics will support Rand Paul. The Alex Jones crowd and the anarchists may not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the frauds will support Rand Paul. Those who never belonged anywhere but getting on their knees and puckering up for the Republican Party in the first place.

      Some years from now, under the mantle of a new so-called "Tea Party" they'll be hypocritically wailing in the streets again about the growth of government. Of course conveniently only when a Democrat gets in the white house, since they're properly potty-trained Republican voting sheep.

      Delete
  8. @Mark

    Rand Paul sure didn't mind appealing to the "lunatics" and manipulating them, did he? He swore up and down he was going to stop foreign aid to Israel and we don't hear a peep about it now.

    If he'd run honestly appealing to the conservative base, with his real views (Zionist, prowar) that would have been far better.

    He could have just said I am a Republican constitutionalist and sure I believe in the war on terror and Zionist world government but I'll try to make sure we go by the book. When we assassinate by drones, the paper work will be right.
    And we'll Mirandize you.

    That's what his constitutionality amounts to, doesn't it?

    The whole right libertarian movement post-2009 seems to have become a way to co-opt the truth movement and protect the banksters from the prosecution they richly deserved.

    No wonder the left is laughing.

    The right had all the cards in 2008, and one by one, by their dumb,dumber, and dumbest moves, they have lost credibility not just with the opposite side but with fellow travelers.

    Ron Paul must have been blackmailed. I can't think otherwise why he has made all his supporters, present and former, look credulous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is case in point. This rambling sounds like a something a schizophrenic crazy would write.

      Just write in Ron Paul every election. You know you want to. Ron Paul 2048.

      Delete
  9. Now, now, anyone considering attacking others to be a bad thing is a lunatic?

    Mark... anyone who can think things through is lunatic by your definition. Anarcho-capitalism is the only logical formulation of libertarianism. The idea of having a "night watch" band of people who are, by day, allowed to rob (er, collect taxes from) the citizens they're supposed to protect -- which is what a "minimal state" is -- does not sound terribly logical or quite sane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here you have it. The claim is made that anarcho-capitalism is the only "true" libertarianism. Anybody else is a sell-out, and I suppose that would have to include Ron Paul. But if that is the only true libertarianism, you might as well forget politics because anarcho-capitalism ain't going to happen, ever. This is the equivalent of the Socialist Laborites sitting in their armchairs waiting for the socialist revolution to happen.

      Delete
    2. He didn't say it was the only "true" formulation of libertarianism.
      He said it is the only *logical* formulation of libertarianism.

      And he is correct.
      And you are misrepresenting his words.

      The rest is just your worthless opinion. Please continue voting in the system that turned a constitutional Republic into a welfare-warfare state that uses the bill of rights as toilet paper. The Republican Party can use all the gullible sheep it can get.

      Delete
  10. What I admire most about Rand is that he will not compromise on the issues like Ron Paul does frequently. Rand is not afraid to make the unpopular vote, while Ron usually bows to pressure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now now, Mr. anonymous.
      We made an agreement that you would take your medicine daily like a good boy.

      Delete
  11. If Rand Paul is all that, why isn't there a site devoted to his "principles"? You know, something named, maybe, "The Daily Rand"?

    ReplyDelete