Wednesday, November 27, 2013

HuffPo Thinks Rand Paul is a Libertarian

Rich Rubino at HuffPo writes:

For Rand Paul to garner the Republican presidential nomination, he will have to wage a populist insurgency campaign, pitting the Libertarian bloodline of the Republican Party against the old guard. While he would have a challenge winning the Presidency, there is no better time for a candidate who has become the tribune of Libertarian-Republicans to capitalize on the passion, activism, and ascendency of the Libertarian movement within the GOP.
For the record, Rand told TIME magazine:
 "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," Paul says[...]


  1. The notion of a Libertarian movement within the GOP violates the law of non-contradiction.

    1. He said "movement", not singular individual.
      And now that Ron Paul has retired there is not a single individual left in the GOP that could conceivably be called libertarian.

    2. Justin Amash? Thomas Massie? Rand Paul? Mike Lee? Raul Labrador? Paul Broun? All have similar voting records to Ron Paul. And they don't have the conspiracy crankery that detracts from them. They aren't perfect but they are close.

      Ron Paul has plenty of deviations from being pure as it is. He is anti-choice. He is average to bad on immigration. I'm just happy that there are half dozen people really having an impact. That didn't exist 5 years ago.

    3. Conservative, yes. Libertarian, hardly. At best they might be considered Taft Republicans, which if you have to be a Republican is not such a bad thing. But like Taft, all have shown a willingness to be flexible on issues that seemingly conflict with at least some of their strongly held principles. All are actively working to funnel subsidies and favors to their district. None are advocating any of the fundamentally radical changes in governance which will be required if liberty is to once again take root in this country.

      They may be somewhat more inclined to liberty than most of their colleagues, but to consider them Libertarian devalues the concept and undermimes the truly important effort to advance liberty taking place outside of Congress.

    4. @ Mark

      Don't be ridiculous. None of the names you mentioned are libertarians.
      And yes, Ron Paul did deviate here and there. That's why even he is not perfect. But to claim the names you mentioned even come close to him is absurd. In their dreams, maybe. They aren't fit to shine his shoes as far as liberty radicalism is concerned. Justin Amash wouldn't even take tax hikes off the table a few months ago. Tax HIKES!!! Rand Paul sucks up to Israel, also wants a strong military.and has condemned people who blew the whistle on the state, despite it being about the state violating rights or waging illegal wars:

      Every single one of them have a failure to understand the CORE principles of libertarianism. The non-aggression principle and private property rights. As far as abortion goes, that is a complex issue that the libertarian movement at large is still debating about. So i could hardly pin that on Ron Paul as being a disqualifier.

      I repeat, without Ron Paul there *is no libertarian left in government*.

      Just because they do just a little bit more than pay lip service to their so-called "small government" views than does the rest of the GOP, does not make them libertarians.

      I for one refuse to allow people that cannot even be considered 'minarchists' (the mildest version of libertarianism) to hijack the word "libertarian". The mildest libertarian, when real, is still 10 times more radical than any of the names you mentioned.

  2. I wonder where Rand is hiding these days. He has been noticeably absent since the Iran deal.

  3. The neocon Hot Air has noted Rand's disappearance:

    "I wanted to write something contrasting his views on the deal with Rand Paul’s to explore how “tea party” foreign policy, such as it is, differs from libertarian foreign policy. But unless I missed it, Paul hasn’t uttered a word about Geneva since the terms were announced Saturday night. Nothing on his Twitter feed as of this writing, nothing from his Senate press shop. He’s been conspicuously silent while Cruz, just as conspicuously, has rushed to get out in front on it. Which, come to think of it, is a meaningful contrast."

  4. Passed out from holding his nose too long.

  5. Anyone who supported the Republicans $3.5 trillion budget vs. Obama's $3.7 trillion budget is an anti-government radical anarchist who favors unfettered dog-eat-dog capitalism.

  6. Rand Paul actually is a libertarian. He's not an anarchist, like yourself, and he's not a libertine, like the people over at Reason, which is why he claims to not be a libertarian, so as not to be associated with those two groups. But in principle, he is a libertarian. The libertarian spectrum extends beyond Rothbard. Get over it.

    1. The libertarian spectrum does not extend beyond Non-Agression Principle. Everyhting else is advocating one kind of violent thuggery or another.

    2. You're bizarrely confused, Anonymous @ 6:50 PM.

      To say that Rand is libertarian is like saying a rock is soft.

      Perhaps you missed this bit from the article?:

      "...but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says"

      He's a two bit sell-out like all the rest of the scoundrels in the swamp.

      If you can't see that, you're blind.

      - RothbardianamericanHelot

    3. The libertarian spectrum does NOT extend beyond minarchism. And Rand Paul is not even CLOSE to being a minarchist.

      In principle, he's a libertarian?
      You obviously don't even know what the hell libertarian principles are.
      He's not even a constitutionalist, and even the constitution isn't libertarian (e.g. government post office)

  7. Rand Paul has almost exactly the same voting record as Ron Paul. Rand has made only 2 or 3 votes since he entered the senate that would have differed from Ron's.