Saturday, July 27, 2013

Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul (Or Judas I vs. Judas II)

MSM is going all gaga over a Chris Christie attack on libertarians. Most noteworthy is that MSM and Chris Christie link libertarianism with Rand Paul.

Long-time EPJ readers know that I do not consider Rand the poster boy of libertarianism. In my view, he leaks more than a $9.02 Winco Aluminum Spaghetti Strainer.


1. In the Kentucky senate race, Rand is supporting crony establishment creep Mitch McConnell against libertarian friendly Matt Bevin. It's about getting parts of crony Republican leadership to support a Rand presidential run.

2. Although Rand is being attacked by the neocons for not holding to a complete global interventionist foreign policy, Rand at best always sidesteps the interventionist question when it comes to Israel, and at times, even worse, states that the US should support Israel against its Middle East enemies. 

After Rand returned to the U.S. from a trip to Israel he told Breitbart News, “Absolutely we stand with Israel. What I think we should do is announce to the world — and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

This is not about principle. Rand's pollsters tell Rand he he needs the votes of the pro-Israel evangelicals for any future presidential campaign. His ditching of the libertarian anti-foreign intervention principle is working. The evangelicals are praying for him.

3. Bizarrely, Rand, rather than desiring to end government "security theater" at airports, wants to  turn the invasive coerced submission requiring theater efforts over to Mussolini-style crony "private sector" operators. Some libertarian position that is.

4. Rand told TIME magazine that he considers the libertarian label an albatross.
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.
Given the detailed understanding that Rand Paul must have of what libertarianism really is all about, since he grew up eating at the table of one of the great libertarians of all time, Rand must be considered nothing now but a Judas at the libertarian table. But he is not selling out for thirty silver coins, his father could give him that out of pocket change, he is selling out for power. Rand wants to be president.

This is the man Christie wants to label as a libertarian--a Judas.  It should be noted that many Republicans consider Christie a Judas, for his adoring words for, and chumming around with,
America's # 1 Creepy-Ass Surveillance Cracka, President Obama.

And so we have a cage match between Judas I and Judas II.  No self respecting person of peace should get anywhere near either of these characters who are piecemeal selling their souls to become the next head Creepy Ass Cracka.

As for Judas Christie's attacks on libertarianism. He says:
These esoteric, intellectual debates — I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. And they won’t, because that’s a much tougher conversation to have.
These "esoteric, intellectual" debates are about liberty and to a lesser degree the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Two documents which attempted to direct a then new land away from the now ever growing intrusive invasion by government into the lives of individuals. It is about discussion of George Washington's farewell speech and his warning to avoid foreign entanglements.

Yes, Judas Christie says, forget these discussions. Perhaps he believes, as apparently MSM does,  that we all should be focused on the name that has been given the new royal baby and what it means.

And as for the widows and the orphans of 9-11, libertarians have never backed down, anywhere, from a discussion of the foreign interventions that caused the blowback of 9-11. Indeed, in a famous exchange during the 2008  Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina, Ron Paul made clear to a worldwide audience the libertarian view that blowback was responsible for the 9-11 attack. 

It is simply a big fat lie to charge that true libertarians would back down from such a discussion. Perhaps Judas Rand might back away, if his pollsters tell him that it wouldn't be a good move for his presidential aspirations, but principled libertarians would never do so.

In fact, since Christie has brought it up, I challenge the New Jersey governor to set up such a discussion with 9-11 the topic, with widows and orphans in the audience and a principled libertarian, say, Walter Block, explaining blowback  and Christie can take the warmonger position. 


  1. So fatboy got in front of a bunch of cameras and promised a fat pile of cash, how much courage did that take?

  2. "Two documents which attempted to direct a then new land away from the now ever growing intrusive invasion by government into the lives of individuals."

    I think most here would agree that the Constitution/Bill of Rights is a failed document.

    I picked out the above quoted gem because of the inference to it, which is important to me and reflects many discussions I've had.

    See, the "American experiment" went in the wrong should have gone further in the direction of "limited gov't" if it was going to be a true experiment...with the goal of there being no gov't, yet security.

    So from day one the experiment failed, because it moved in the direction of more gov't, not less...which makes it no different from any other gov't in existence before or now.

    In fact, I think I could make an argument that a good percentage of people should be able to agree that the ideal form of gov't should be "no gov't"...and knowing that's the "ideal" it should stand to reason that that should be the direction of "movement".

    I think it shouldn't be that hard to convince a good portion of non-anarchists that very fact...get them to admit the "ideal" and you've won despite their arguments that it can't exist...because then they have to start to acknowledge the movement in the WRONG direction.

    The "esoteric" as Christie puts it...really belongs to the Republican party in this notion of "limited" gov't...because there's no clear definition of what limited is...and Christie is a reflection of that.

    Anarchy in it's definition as it relates to government is quite clear.

    Good luck getting a definition of "limited gov't" that makes sense out of any GOPer(or minarchist, no offense).

    Some of them might say "The Constitution", but it's a failure by any reasonable standard. It was a good ole fashioned college try, but still a failure.

    If you can't even agree on what a supposed staple of your philosophy is, like "limited gov't" you've lost before you even started.

    Not withstanding of course, the actual REASON why gov't should be limited...which the answer to once again should make a reasoning person admit that anarchism is the ideal.

  3. There is a very bizarre (in my mind) relationship between Christian eschatologists, Zionists and the neocons.
    Politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed.

    1. well its not so bizarre, if you accept something like revelations as the literal truth and believe these are the end times then when someone comes on the box and tells you Israel must survive for Gods special plan to unfold and for you to be raptured, well you are going to do all you can, aren't you? Sellers of san Francisco fog machines, New York bridges and K street lobbyists rub their hands together.

    2. To clarify, eschatology is a field of theology that deals with "last things", so to speak. Virtually all religions have an eschatology and there is a great deal of diversity of thought amongst Christians as to what will happen at the End of this world.

      Anyway, I used to be an evangelical Protestant, Christian Zionist, and neoconservative. You are right in that there is a striking amount of overlap between these groups and I'm a bit baffled as to why exactly that is. My theory is that a lot of it comes down to Christian Zionist interpretations of the Bible. The way they see it, the modern state of Israel is to play a crucial role in the "End Times", and it is America's God-given role to protect Israel because only then will America be blessed by God. It helps to have an empire when trying to play the role of Israel's geopolitical bodyguard.

      I look back and wonder how I ever bought into that nonsense - I'm now an Orthodox Christian and Rothbardian. So people can change their views. I'm the exception, however.

  4. Christie cannot debate giving up our freedom, for NSA corporate profits, from overdoing and overcharging for their government work. To Chris Christie Freedom and Security are mutually excusive. Corporatist like Christie loves handing over government work, to big corporations, Yes we have to give up some freedom, for security, but we have every right to question how much.

  5. Perhaps it's my growing disgust but candidates for President get worse with every election. It looks like Christie will be the GOP successor to Mitt. (Mitt Romney for those who have forgotten him)

  6. I do not buy that there is not a better way, to give us even better security. But I am paying for it, and paying too much, to private corporations doing government work at NSA. Give me a break, we are not that dumb. You missed the Boston Bombers, even though you, the NDA was tipped off they were trouble. So why should anyone with sense believe, that the only way you can stop bombers, is to spy on everyone. You pile up so much data, that when a tip comes in from another source, you miss it, because cannot take your eyes off the screen. Too important, call the local police with your tip, we do not have time to listen, we just gather metadata on everyone, who has time to listen. And that Freedom stuff, it is an old fashioned notice, this is all about change.

  7. So if you buy into the blowback argument, then you want to give the terrorists an opportunity to settle the score? What is the point of bringing up blowback here? The argument you are making is that you stop terrorism by allowing terrorism. It makes no sense.

    1. No Jay, the argument is that you stop terrorism by not participating in terrorism. But the truth, if you are open to seeing it, is that government uses terrorism to create demand for government.