Sunday, March 24, 2013

Rothbard Left a Note on Rand Paul...

Christopher Barcelo writes:

"The libertarian movement has coasted far too long on the intellectually lazy path of failing to make distinctions, or failing to discriminate, of failing to make a rigorous search to distinguish truth from error in the views of those who claim to be its members or allies. It is almost as if any passing joker who mumbles a few words about “freedom” is automatically clasped to our bosom as a member of the one, big, libertarian family. As our movement grows in influence, we can no longer afford the luxury of this intellectual sloth. It is high time to identify Milton Friedman [substitute Rand Paul Here] for what he really is. It is high time to call a spade a spade, and a statist a statist."
-From Economic Controversies; Section 7, Chapter 48: Milton Friedman Unraveled
Murray N. Rothbard

I read this last night and thought of EPJ. Then I logged on this morning to see the Rand resources, I think this would be a good libertarian 'locker room' speech in this time.


20 comments:

  1. I find this odd. Rand has NEVER called himself a libertarian. He identifies himself as a Constitutional Conservative. Why do libertarians continue to dog the guy and expect him to be something that he's not? Understand, libertarianism isn't a gene trait. You have to be willing to call yourself one. Let's stop this dream that Rand is his father. Ron is gone from congress and nobody is left to replace him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is Constitutional, or Conservative, about foreign aid, drones, the TSA...

      Rand is sellout poseur.

      Delete
  2. The Paul family is showing the Friedman family movies. backwards. Ron Paul was (and though retired still is) the genuine article, like David Friedman. Milton was subject to this sort of critique, as is Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do we (Libertarians) "dog" Rand?

    Because he's trying like blazes to get us to support him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Think McKeown has it right, give the guy credit for some of his positions which help libertarian goals, but he is not and does not claim to be one. Why Bob continues to expose his non libertarian message when he isn't one, is akin to beating a dead horse. Emphasize what he's good for, look to others for what he is not. Ron is likely the only politician that would give the movement everything it desired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I give Rand Paul credit for the ground he does make. I don't think Rand is evil. I don't think Bob does, though I can't speak for him. But as Dave Narby points out; Rand is seeking us out - not the other way around.

      Problem is, government can never give the movement all it desires, it's an impossibility.

      The movement should be interested, and participate in politics in some cases; but never with the notion that it will be the solution. Government is not the solution to government.

      Libertarians should use politics to shout from the roof tops the message and ideology that defines liberty; they should not seek votes but opinions and ideas.

      No Ron Paul, Rand Paul, or "x" elected official will ever satisfy the necessities of freedom. The very implication of freedom is absent coercion; thus absent government.

      Ideas change the world, not a single nations legislators.

      Delete
    2. People who associate Rand with genuine liberty need a resource where all his Statist positions are exposed. Rand is NOT good for liberty!

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. .....or is it "intellectually lazy" to reject a candidate with whom you agree on most issues and keep waiting for a "libertarian superman" to magically appear. To me that's a cop-out. Rand Paul is the best chance we've got to at least begin a process of reform.

    What should a libertarian do at the next election? Reject Rand Paul because he is a "statist" (like most Americans) and sit on the sidelines as usual, thumbing through a copy of "The Road to Serfdom"?

    I am a Libertarian and I will be voting for Rand Paul if the opportunity arises. We have to start somewhere and I believe Rand Paul would be a major step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't we just finish an election cycle where, by and large, we told would be Romney voters not to simply vote for the 'lesser of two evils' on the sole basis of one being 'less evil'.

      Not saying Rand Paul is satan, evil, etc. Just pointing out the inconsistency in logic. A vote is an endorsement. We should only endorse what we can really believe in. Ron Paul proclaimed what he believed in, supported, etc. as well as what he did not. Rand Paul can't seem to muster such a defining statement.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. I believe Rand Paul's compromises are based on the practical requirements of US democracy. He has spent his whole life watching his Dad run into brick walls. He's seen that it's impossible to translate that into enough votes to challenge the status quo. Compromise is the only way he can achieve the power to begin a process of change.

      We should never go into battle or deny ourselves for "principles". These exist in a theoretical realm. Our focus should be on practical outcomes and I believe that is exactly what Rand Paul is doing.

      Serious question, if Ron endorses Rand, would you vote for him?

      Delete
    4. I don't think Ron Paul ran into any brick walls. I think he's breaking them down. Ron Paul is, and has, made some of the biggest contributions to liberty and freedom without having to hold office. Office is contrary to these things. Like I said above, change will not change with government. This government, like all others before it will devour itself.

      I'm not going into 'battle' with anyone. I go into battle with ideas. Doing so I could not compromise to get ahead, to do so would be to destroy the very foundation of the idea. My idea is for individual liberty, free markets, and a better humanity. The state is contrary to all of these and can only survive through their domination and destruction of them.

      If Ron Paul would endorse Rand, I would understand; it's his son. Ron Paul is not an infallible human being, neither am I. The answer is, however, no. This is because my vote for Ron (one of my only votes ever) was not for Ron Paul as president or a man but to show the ideas behind him my respect and support. If anyone really thought Ron was gonna win with the current state of affairs they had another thing coming.

      Even if Ron had won in a landslide I don't think the rights would be wronged nor do I believe the state would change. His hands would be tied more than any other president in history. People's minds and hearts have to change. That's something that will get my vote.

      Delete
    5. Lol, I said rights wronged ... swap that round.

      Delete
  7. I would like to clarify. It is not Rand Paul. The name in the above statement may be exchanged with any and all who believe that government can grant freedom or protect liberty. One of the greatest contributions of people such as Bastiat, Rothbard, Hoppe etc. has been the separation of government and law. Law protects freedom, government takes it away.

    This is why Rand, Friedman, etc. should never gain the full support of any true believer in liberty. Government cannot be used to bring about a satisfactory state of liberty for it's subjects. The very nature of the social arrangement is built on a destruction and invasion of liberty.

    While it is good for libertarians to support any effectual reduction in government, it is frightful to think that some will compromise pointing out the inadequacy of the whole picture as not to 'hurt' their desired candidate. Rand Paul, in seeking the libertarian vote should welcome, and acknowledge their criticism.

    There is no perfect person, that is why it is important that we never support people or 'candidates'. They should only support what they believe to be the proper ideas and abhor compromise or contradiction in these.

    That being said I don't attack Rand Paul per se, I attack the compromising mentality that he seems to display. There is no vagueness in the definition of liberty. You either believe in freedom, or you believe in slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's an awkward and imprecise label (I wish whoever started it had come up with something less dorky, oh well) that has come to be defined by it's enemies, right and left as an insult meaning someone who lacks compassion, intelligence and/or experience. We're heartless, naive retards, racist anti-semitic male chauvinists that want to starve the poor, kill the environment and let mexicans and rag-heads overrun the country and kill us all, after making everyone download porn and stolen "I.P." and turn their kids into gay junkies that hate Jesus and Israel. Also we're anti-American and against World Peace and support giving crazy people machine guns (domestically) but oppose giving crazy people unlimited money and weapons overseas. Fake libertarians like Beck and Andrew Sullivan are generally easy to spot because they were neo-cons when it counted and will certainly revert as soon as they start passing water through their bloomers after the next fake scare. I'm inclined to label them Incontinent Conservatives and Opportunistic Barebackers except that juvenile name calling is practically the signature and only anti-libertarian argument. "Did you see the schmuck on that camel?"

    Curiously, this works well for me because if someone says or implies they aren't Libertarian I can, and usually do, since I'm not a masochist, stop paying attention right there. I also identify as a CC, but since both the Constitution and "conservatism" are virtually dead, that isn't very useful. I remain a Rothbardian, a Rockwellian and a Paultard. "Randian"? No way, although I wish him and (some) of his allies well. So far...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rand Paul's media director Jack Hunter, and other prominent 'liberty' bloggers and tweeters are hard at work pushing the 'you can be a social conservative and be a libertarian mantra.' They use the word 'libertarian' constantly. Its quite evident what is going on if one looks around, including here at EPJ. Rand Paul is saying what the moment dictates while his backers push the libertarian angle. This is meant to corral those who became politically involved through the messages spoken by Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You could certainly be a "social conservative" by purchasing and arranging contractually to live in a "socially conservative" private neighbor that, if the participants so chose, banned all of the people and behaviors that "social conservative" folks claim to dislike and abhor. However, they would not be able to physically attack the lesbian/atheist farm down the road. It has bothered me since that libertarians fail to explain how Ancap might work to rescue "social conservatives" from the "progressives". Their view of us is that we want crack heads to be able to live next door to them where their kids would be forced to go to government school with the crack heads' kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typo.

      The first sentence above should read:

      You could certainly be a "social conservative" by purchasing and arranging contractually to live in a "socially conservative" private NEIGHBORHOOD......

      Delete