Thursday, August 22, 2013

Cato Shrugged Executive Director: Rand Paul Rand Would Be Great as a "Mildly" Noninterventionist President

David Boaz, executive director of the Cato Institute, in a recent interview tells us that
Rand Paul is clearly the most significant libertarian-leaning American political figure in a long time. 
I seriously doubt that Rand has brought one person into the libertarian movement, especially with comments like this:
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.
That the beltarians are behind Rand tells you a lot. Here's the key as provided by Boaz. He wants a"mild" form of a libertarian, noninterventionism program:
It's not clear that a strongly libertarian, noninterventionist program could command a majority. But I think a mildly noninterventionist retrenchment, and [proposing to] do a better job of protecting people's privacy, could be a viable political alternative. 
And mind you, Boaz isn't talking here about just "mild" libertarianism on the domestic front. His point on mild nonintervention was a response to this question:
Can someone like Rand Paul win a national election? Won't he get painted as weak on national defense by his political opponents?
Got that? Boaz sees a Rand Paul presidency where the adventures of the empire don't even cease. Just a little "mild" noninterventionism.

It's getting to the point that the litmus test as to whether one is truly a libertarian is going to be one's view on Rand Paul, and a favorable view of Rand and his "mild" libertarianism isn't going to cut it.

So what would "mild' libertarianism look like? It apparently would mean just tinkering with the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security. Boaz tells us:
For a libertarian policy wonk, that is a very frustrating thing. We actually have a plan that would work to put Social Security on a sound footing and eventually liberate people from being reliant on government[...]
It's not going to mean ending the Fed says Boaz:
 the next president is not going to get rid of the Fed. 
In other words, 'mild" libertarianism is about keeping the empire, with just a narrowing down of foreign interventions, keeping Social Security and keeping the Fed.

So way does Boaz see progress? On gay marriage:
you've [...] got libertarian movements going on in regard to gay marriage
Does it needed to be pointed out to Boaz that gay marriage isn't a libertarian issue. The issue is whether government should be in the marriage business at all. If marriage is left to the private sector, then the gay marriage issue disappears.  

In his interview, Boaz shows us just how muddied the libertarian water becomes, when one proclaims that Rand is the most significant libertarian-leaning American political figure in a long time. Rand is not a libertarian. Rand is a tool the statists can use to continue and expand the oppression of the people.


  1. Boaz never disappoints, does he? What an inferior dipshit.

  2. Boaz is the guy Tom woods referenced who trashed Ron Paul but then had to invite to an event after the trashing didn't work and he was way more popular than anyone with Cato, right?

  3. Wenzel you're too harsh on Boaz here. He wasn't advocating as much as analyzing the political landscape, and accurately too.

    While I agree it's nothing to get excited about, Rand does have a shot at the GOP nod if not the general against Hillary, that's all Boaz is saying.

    1. I agree with this. Here's Boaz on gay marriage in 1997:

      I'd note that recently he seems to have taken the position that marriage privatization is a cop-out and libertarians should advocate marriage equality in lieu of privatization. Which I agree with.

  4. More bla, bla from wenzel as usual. RAND PAUL 2016

  5. Cmon, its not as if Boaz or Rand have muddied the waters. All kinds of people have claimed to be libertarians over the years. One could argue that the label is being expanded to voters of other persuasions. If they instinctively identify as libertarians now, they may well actually discover what it actually entails in the future.

    I mean, there are actually purported libertarians who endorse a central bank!? What is less libertarian than central economic planning and monetary stimulus? Don't get me wrong, Rand Paul does regularly moderate the message (and its disappointing). But a few years ago, even the Cato types would have deemed Ron Paul an extremist...