Monday, March 11, 2013

CPAC Will Be Rand Paul Country

This Rand Paul:

 "Sen. Paul has voted for cruel, ineffective Iran sanctions, and a lot of antiwar conservatives were willing to cut him some slack on the grounds that he was still opposed to war with Iran. He offered an entirely unnecessary security guarantee to Israel, and many of his potential supporters were still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Voting to block Hagel was the final straw for a lot of people, but it’s important to understand that this reaction is not limited to dissatisfaction with today’s vote. The decision to vote with his party to block Hagel is part of a pattern of bad calls that Sen. Paul has made in recent months, and in each of these he has ended up siding with people who hate restraint and prudence in foreign policy and who also hate Hagel because he represented some measure of both." -Daniel Larison 


  1. Rand must be doing something right. From Salon:

    Bro-gressives’ love affair with Rand Paul
    The hero-worship of the racist, misogynist Kentucky senator brings out the worst in certain progressive dudes

  2. I plan on helping Rand get elected in 2016.
    Why? Because we are stuck with a monopoly ruling class. Rand in the white house is the least of the plausible evils that could exist in 2016.
    Do I know he is not a libertarian? Yes.
    Will I help to convey the message that he is not a true libertarian, this is simply the least of evils we are presented with. Of course.

    Why can you not agree?

    1. If I recall correctly, a lot of people thought that they would make a difference by voting for O in 2008 precisely because he wasn't of the 'monopoly ruling class'. Turns out that it doesn't matter who's in the white house, the ruling class always wins.
      It's better that the bad guys get the white house, then it is harder for the mass media and the sheeple to blame it on libertarianism or the free market.

      Just my 2¢

    2. even with the filibuster which gets a bit of a cheer for getting the methodology right even if it didn't add up to much, he has done plenty that completely wrong.

  3. Rand's foreign policy record is a mixed bag. He voted for sanctions on Iran twice yet he opposed AIPAC when he called to stop sending jets to Egypt. Opposing AIPAC is a significant thing to do for any politician. It proved to me he wasn't in the Neo-Con orbit.

    Being a Rothbardian I was highly critical of Rand due to his rhetoric, statements, and the sanctions votes. The AIPAC opposition gave me pause though. His core principles seemed obscured from view due to his seemingly contradictory actions.

    The filibuster in my opinion cleared up his core principles, he is 95% anti-war. I think he would still use the US military to defend Israel but he is definitely opposed to 95% of our foreign interventions. I think he would defend Israel for political considerations and due to his religious beliefs.

    Does conceding that 5% concede 100% of the principle? Yes it does. Does it set us up for a future charlatan to justify other interventions? Yes it does. Unfortunately though the public is not with us Rothbardians. The public, especially conservatives, believe in limited interventions. Rand is going to fill the vacuum left between the disconnected elite and the war weary public. He has the influence and we do not. It is far easier for the public to accept Rand's philosophy in their current mindset than Rothbard's. In my opinion Rothbardians should do what we can to avoid this unfortunate and inevitable development towards a 95% non-interventionist concession.

    I see you trying to do this Robert and I commend you. However, I can tell you that you are losing the hearts of the libertarian youth with your persistent attacks on Rand and refusal to give credit to him where it is due. Rand's filibuster was heroic.

    The Rothbardians have a perception problem. We are perceived as ivory tower intellectuals who do not understand the practical side to electoral politics. This problem needs addressed if we are going to influence the debate in the Liberty community to push for 100% non-interventionism as opposed to Rand's 95% mixture. We have to convince our Liberty neighbors of the danger of this position even if it seems practically tempting. We have to convince them we are right and that it is not about ego, jealousy, nor about a lack of understanding of practical politics. We have to make the case that it is about the liberty movement avoiding the same mistakes as previous liberty revolutions by planting the intellectual seeds of its own demise.

    1. No one “95% non-interventionist” can get the Republican nomination for president or be elected President of an empire. And no zionist is or can be a 95% non-interventionist.

  4. Rand Paul opposing the transfer of fighter jets to Egypt is not entirely an anti-AIPAC maneuver. This could ultimately lead to increasing some form of aid to Israel as a countermeasure, thus the end game could be a win for both Israel and the war profiteers.

    One of the reasons so many young 'libertarians' are becoming more and more excited about Rand Paul is due to the idea that the State is the route to a free society: simply install the right player and liberty is born. There are those in the 'liberty' movement working diligently to promote this myth. Being wedded to the concept of the State as a solution remains sacrosanct. Money is made and notariety is established selling this snake oil.

    Unfortunately this is where Ron Paul also creates a problem. He has continually promoted a 'free society' achieved via 'getting back to' a constitutional government.

    If Ron would've used his speech during the Republican Nat'l Convention last year to read Lysander Spooner's No Treason, telling people his experience has determined Spooner to be correct, he could've dropped the mic and walked off stage to being a real liberty movement that exposed the State for what it truly is.

    As things currently stands, the vast majority of society remains wedded to the State as being legitimate and benevolent to some degree if led by the right people.

    1. When did Ron give a speech at the Reoublican National Convention?