Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Rand Paul Dreams of 12 Million New Taxpayers

By, Chris Rossini

Rand Paul shared his take on the benefits of illegal immigrants becoming citizens:
“Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers. Twelve million more people assimilating into society. Twelve million more people being productive contributors.”
What an idea! More taxpayers!

And when they become taxpayers, at that point, they become "productive contributors".

Do you see even a tinge of libertarian-oriented thinking there? I don't. The above logic is something that I'd expect from Nancy Pelosi's lips.

Why don't we force everyone in the world to become an American taxpayer? Just think...7 Billion "productive contributors"!!

The job of a libertarian is to get taxation going in the opposite direction....down...with the goal of zero. Furthermore, it is to show others that the process itself is destructive, not productive.

This Senator is walking around carrying a Libertarian banner. Yes, he has denied being a libertarian. But many libertarians (individuals and publications) don't want to hear it. Rand carries the Libertarian banner and that's it!

Today, I read Brian Doherty of Reason use the description:
"This longtime libertarian movement watcher has an ingrained cautiousness about declaring the electorate at large is ready to embrace someone as libertarian as Paul."
I'm also going to (ironically) quote Justin Raimondo, who in Jan, appeared on The Lew Rockwell Show. He said to Lew:
"We have to protect the brand; the brand name 'Libertarian'. And we can't ever let it be sullied by opportunists."
Well, the "brand" is being sullied! There is no question about that.

The political successes and failures in Rand Paul's future are not the issue. The issue is attaching the word "Libertarian" to them, and him.

It's a big time mistake that will come back to bite hard if the population at large believes it.

So to libertarians....Listen to Rand's own words:
They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian.
Do the ideas of liberty, and Rand Paul himself, a huge favor: Remove the albatross that you've placed around his neck.

Follow @ChrisRossini on Twitter


  1. That's it. He's jumped the shark. No honest libertarian can any longer defend this guy. He is NOT our friend.

  2. It's illegal not to be documented by the government, the government hates people that arnt under its control. Further, the government actually charges you to become documented for youre future slavery.

    When i hear about 12million people living mostly free from government, i say good for them.

    Rand paul thinks being documented by government is what defines 'society' and being 'productive'. Thats statism to its fullest.

    the government doesnt like people it cant rob from.

  3. I do see a tinge of libertarian thinking from Rand.

    What is lacking is any tinge of anarchistic thinking.

    1. Not all anarchists are libertarians, true. But all libertarians are anarchists. If you support any state, you oppose liberty. Liberty is self-ownership. All states, regardless the form (including the theoretical "minimal state"), are fundamentally based on the claim that a group of people owns you (has final authority over you). This is antithetical to self-ownership. You either have final authority over your body and justly acquired property, or you don't. Anyone who advocates the antithesis of self-ownership (liberty) is not a libertarian.

      I realize that it is often ASSERTED that there are variants of libertarianism that are not anarchistic ("minarchist" libertarians or even "Constitutionalist" libertarians). None of these assertions are based on valid arguments. Though you can use whatever words you want, if the philosophy of libertarianism has a coherent connection to the concept of liberty, then it must be anarchistic.

    2. Anarchy is the absence of liberty. Anarchy is animal, jungle rule. Perhaps that is where the train has gone of the tracks for some of you. A stateless society is not desirable and is not libertarian.

    3. Mark, that is what the rulers have taught you. It is not the result of critical thinking. Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean no rules. If you think that without rulers, we'd be in the animal, jungle, you aren't thinking, you're regurgitating. Hobbes was a dumbass. Read more books.

      While some want to nitpick various anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist/voluntarist theories of how a fully stateless society will function, the real focus needs to first be turned on the prevailing paradigm, statism, otherwise, such skepticism is revealed to be what is really is, kneejerk defense of the familiar status quo. And there, in this scrutiny of the claims of statism, you will find not a single justification, not a single theory, not a single philosophy hold up to honest, logical scrutiny. It is incoherent at every level. There's a great essay called "Twenty-one Reasons Why Statism Is a Radical and Radically Incoherent Theory" I suggest just as a starter. It is literally impossible to be honest, logical, informed, well-meaning and not an anarchist. If you are not an anarchist, you are not at least one of those, as there is not a single honest, logical, well-meaning reason to support the radically incoherent (morally and logically) idea that 1) some people have the right to rule over others 2) that the state is an effective means towards well-meaning ends (peace, prosperity, justice). You are either still a dupe, or you're complicit.

      I already doubt honest and well-meaning from you, since you unilaterally declare "a stateless society is not desirable" and yet you can only speak for yourself so have not honest authority to use the generality. You don't speak for me, or anyone else, so who are you to declare what is desirable or not? An honest, humble phrasing would be "I, Mark, am afraid I won't like a stateless society".

      As for being a stateless society not being libertarian, well, you can use words however you want, but if "libertarian" has any connection to the concept "liberty", then ONLY a stateless society is libertarian, as a state is a fundamental claim that some people are rulers/owners of others. This isn't just a minor incompatibility, it is a case of complete antithesis to liberty (self ownership). That you dare call institutionalized slavery (the ownership of some people by other people, which is what all states, real and imagined, are) "libertarian" speaks even louder to either your ignorance, or your evil.

  4. If Rand was a true libertarian, he'd be pushing for all of the rest of us to be undocumented as well.

    being human and living somewhere voluntarily and peacefully isnt 'illegal' as the government would like us to believe..

  5. "Twelve million more people assimilating into society. Twelve million more people being productive contributors.”

    this is the most troubling statement ive heard from a libertarian in a while. Its hard to tell if he's purposely using this type of language to not look fringe or if he really believes this.

    But assuming he really believes this, how is an undocumented individual not a 'productive contributor' of 'society' already? Assuming they are working under the table doing a job others didnt want to do which improves the quality of life for others, makes them about 100% more productive than the parasites in government, rand paul included.

    Rand paul defines society as 'documented citizen' and defines being a productive contributor as documented citizen, becomes nope, there's no way an indivodual can be a productive contributor of society if they arnt properly documented and taxed by the government

    The parasites just need an ever bigger host to leech off of.

    Rand paul is a creepy authoritarian.

    1. "this is the most troubling statement ive heard from a libertarian in a while"

      This is exactly why Chris and Robert and others are making such an effort to continually call out Rand Paul. He's NOT a libertarian. He doesn't even personally claim to be one. So why do people think he is? The truth is, based on Rand's quote you HAVEN'T heard a statement that troubling from a libertarian...because Rand isn't a libertarian.

      Just because his father, a Constitutional statist, is friends with a lot of libertarians, and did a good job of pointing people in the direction of libertarian authors, and a some gullible libertarians gave money to Rand so he could join the ruling caste doesn't him something he 1) has never claimed to be 2) has never demonstrated to be.

    2. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
      Say it with me.
      Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
      Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
      Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.
      Rand Paul is not a Libertarian.

      He doesn't even claim to be. He is not his Father. He's a decent man but he is not his Father and should be judged separately.

  6. Rand paul : before the income tax, social security numbers, and birth certificates were invented no one was a productive contributor of society!

  7. The Randians have a name for those wanting to protect the brand: Losertarian. It's all about winning political office for them.

  8. The left (especially) is always trying to smear the term "libertarian" as being just another name for Republican. Heck according to them, the reign of George the Lesser was 8 years of inflicting our crazy libertarian ideas upon the country, to disastrous results (the exact same policies under Obama are "progressive"). I've even read leftists say that it's the systemic implementation of ROTHBARD's ideas (ROTHBARD!!) for the past 40 YEARS that have caused all the problems in the world!

    Of course, it's all complete nonsense. You can't stop liars from lying. Oh well.

    But I think it's important not to provide even the inkling of substance to their baseless accusations. Not for the liars' sake, but for the sake of those who might still yet be rescued from statist indoctrination. Those with intentionally hobbled thinking ability rightfully intuit that Republicans are scumbags. If they see even a sliver of a legitimate reason to believe that libertarians are just some variant of Republican, the guilt by association could be enough to forever inoculate them from the true message of liberty.

    It's one thing when your enemy smears you. That's to be expected. It's another if self-proclaimed libertarians SMEAR THEMSELVES by associating with political opportunists who occasionally dole out libertarian-SOUNDING rhetoric, yet have no real connection to the philosophy of liberty.

    This is why I applaud Chris and Robert (and others) for continually calling out Rand Paul and maintaining high visibility to the fact that Rand Paul has no genuine connection to our philosophy. It's sad that those who are so desperate for a successor to his father (and even worse, are literally seeking a political messiah, praising Rand's "action" as opposed to Ron's "education") want to sully the philosophy by projecting their desires on to a rather run of the mill, Republican politician.

    The Republican party, as an institution, has NEVER had anything to do with libertarianism. Yeah, it's great Ron Paul used the party to teach people about Mises, but I think it's important our goal should be to rescue people OUT of the Republican party (and the Democrat party equally), not provide any substance to the idea that libertarians are trying to "reclaim" the Republican party (to reclaim something, you have to have first had it, and that's never been the case).

  9. Wow, lame hit piece. Who needs the MSM when we've got EJP to cannibalize our own instead.

    I can't wait until the "i was a libertarian in 1842 when only three people went to our meetings" snobs give up and decide to go do their own thing again. Dead weight hangers on. This is a new movement anyway. We don't need the old libertarians anyways. They've never won a damned thing in like 50 years.

    1. If you define "libertarian" absent a coherent connection to "liberty" (self-ownership), then what's the point of using the word "libertarian"? There already many variants of pro-state/anti-liberty philosophies to choose from. You can make your "we" as big as you want with such a flexible definition. If feeling like you belong to a large movement of people who think it's ok to enslave others is so important to you, you could call yourself "progressive" and instantly feel apart of a group millions strong. Or maybe you don't like "p" words, so call yourself "conservative" and likewise join a fraternity of millions who think it's just fine to use violence against the innocent to get what they want. No need to feel all alone by adopting a meaningless moniker for a "new movement" that is no different than all the others in principle (since you clearly reject "libertarian" as a term having anything at all to do with liberty).

    2. "They've never won a damned thing in like 50 years."

      Rand has won how many Republican presidential primaries?

  10. This is a lame article. I can't wait until the snobs who brag about being libertarians since 1842 just go back to their two person meetings and do their own thing. Dead weight. They think this is their old movement that went no where and won nothing. This is a new movement, the rEVOLution. If the "libertarian brand" is sullied, big deal. Most of us never heard of libertarians before Ron Paul. I thought it had something to do with liberals. If Rand isn't good enough for your two person meetings, maybe one of the two of you old libertarians can run for president. The other guy will vote for you!

  11. I agree. He is not a libertarian nor is what he said anything close to libertarian. But I still consider him an ally conservative.

    Ron Paul is the one who said to "build coalitions". Well, I think building one with Rand on the things we agree on is worth it. By all means, get on him when he diverts or is working against the liberty direction, but support any action that moves in the liberty direction. Even if that direction is only a small step rather than a large one.

  12. Methinks some doth protest too much

  13. Now wait a minute and let's think about this. I COMPLETELY agree that government should me minimized as much as possible. However, the CURRENT fact is that a large portion of those 12 million Rand refers to are receiving government aid of some sort (free medical treatment, education in public schools, etc...).

    Is it better to have all of us paying for them or to have them paying for themselves?

    In an ideal world, none of us would be forced to pay taxes to fund public government schools. In an ideal world, none of us would be forced to pay taxes to fund free medical care for anyone. In an ideal world, none of us would be forced to pay taxes to fund 12 million illegal immigrants.

    When that ideal world comes about, let me know. Until then - and given the FACT that many of those 12 million are living off my and your taxes in some way, shape, form - Rand's position strikes me as a reasonable, real world positive step.

    So many of us libertarians try to live in utopia NOW. It ain't happening, people. Why can't libertarians believe in and want an end to government schools and Obamacare while - AT THE SAME TIME - giving credit to small steps in the right direction? Hmm? Reducing my tax burden thru more taxpayers is better than leaving my tax burden as it is.