Forbes: Does Rand Paul's Rise Signal A Broader Libertarian Moment?

[T.hill]

Libertarianism, thanks, among other factors, to the emergence of leading presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, is coming to the fore. It is presenting itself in fresh, less eccentric, and increasingly attractive ways

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/05/20/does-rand-pauls-rise-signal-a-broader-libertarian-moment/

[T.hill]

The writer seems very libertarian-oriented as the article is pretty biased. I've never heard of the writer before though.

[Christian Liberty]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....

[mz10]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....

Are you kidding me bro? Chill.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....
Boy wonder strikes again. Why don't you focus on cleaning up your own home state before putting the crosshairs on Rand.

[anaconda]

The book is $85 bucks on amazon. I'll have to hold off..

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Money-Supreme-Monetary-Decisions/dp/1107032547

[phill4paul]

Lol. It would if he considered himself a libertarian. From what I hear he doesn't like dancing nekkid and smoking dope. Which is what every libertarian aspires to. Doncha know?

[Humanae Libertas]

Supporting the drug war is libertarian? Get real.

[phill4paul]

Supporting the drug war is libertarian? Get real.

That's the .1 percent that he and his dad disagree on. /snark

[HigherVision]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....

But he's closer to libertarianism than anyone else in politics in recent times, other than his father. & he's in the Senate which has much less seats than the House, so his position is more important. That's why it's significant.

[Christian Liberty]

Boy wonder strikes again. Why don't you focus on cleaning up your own home state before putting the crosshairs on Rand.

New York State is completely screwed anyway.


That's the .1 percent that he and his dad disagree on. /snark

That's a big issue, as is Iran...


But he's closer to libertarianism than anyone else in politics in recent times, other than his father. & he's in the Senate which has much less seats than the House, so his position is more important. That's why it's significant.

I think Amash and Massie may be closer. In any case, though, Rand Paul has way too many unlibertarian views to be a libertarian. He's a great Senator, but his ideas are not libertarian ones.

[Rocco]

Maybe NY wouldn't be such a wreck if people like FreedomFanatic actually got involved in the liberty movement in its real capacity right now (working within the GOP) instead of this constant complaining about the best senator in recent US history.


Boy wonder strikes again. Why don't you focus on cleaning up your own home state before putting the crosshairs on Rand.

[tmg19103]

Yeah, Rand plays the political game too much to be a true libertarian. He would fit the mainstream media definition of a libertarian, which will provide misinformation as to what libertarianism is all about by calling him one, but it's better than nothing.

No human is perfect, and Rand certainly is not, but I'll take him over any other legit presidential candidate in a heartbeat.

[cajuncocoa]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....


Lol. It would if he considered himself a libertarian. From what I hear he doesn't like dancing nekkid and smoking dope. Which is what every libertarian aspires to. Doncha know?

Rand must be wondering "what's a guy gotta do to throw off this albatross of a label around here, Forbes.com?"

[Krzysztof Lesiak]

Rand needs to embrace marijuana legalization and ending the War on Drugs. I'm sick and tired of his pandering and posturing.

[Keith and stuff]

That would require Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Which he isn't, but in two days we'll know if he's libertarian leaning or if he's just an establishment thug with a blessed last name and good sounding lies....
I guess that depends on what a libertarian is. If rand took the worlds smallest political quiz, he might score libertarian and that would make him a libertarian.


Maybe NY wouldn't be such a wreck if people like FreedomFanatic actually got involved in the liberty movement in its real capacity right now (working within the GOP) instead of this constant complaining about the best senator in recent US history.

Nah. No way to fix The Empire State before other states are fixed. The only hope is to leave NY or find a cave in Mount Marcy and hide in it. Or hope that places like NH and ID become free and the freedom eventually spreads to NY.

[Rocco]

Not with that attitude we can't. Unfortunately I am tied down here so fighting is my only option. Rather die on my feet then live on my knees.



Nah. No way to fix The Empire State before other states are fixed. The only hope is to leave NY or find a cave in Mount Marcy and hide in it. Or hope that places like NH and ID become free and the freedom eventually spreads to NY.

[Jamesiv1]

Rand needs to embrace marijuana legalization and ending the War on Drugs. I'm sick and tired of his pandering and posturing.
Rather than try to be idealogically pure, a good politician picks two or three keystone issues, and flog the rest. I'll settle for 1. End the empire-building, 2. End the Fed (replace with sound money), and 3. Slash the budget

Legalize pot? meh
End the war on drugs? 2nd term

His Dad is idealogically pure, and a terrible politician. But then, Ron never really aspired for higher office - rather, he was badgered into it.

Ron's mission was to sound the wake up call, and he did a monumental job of it.

[Peace&Freedom]

Maybe NY wouldn't be such a wreck if people like FreedomFanatic actually got involved in the liberty movement in its real capacity right now (working within the GOP) instead of this constant complaining about the best senator in recent US history.

You're kidding, right? When I approached the NY Republican Liberty Caucus in 2007 about getting behind Paul in the primaries, the feedback I got was that they were leaning towards Giuliani! Some "real capacity" for liberty that is.

[Keith and stuff]

Not with that attitude we can't. Unfortunately I am tied down here so fighting is my only option. Rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

Dude, New Hampshire is only an hour away from New York. We are talking less than 46 miles. There is no need to die on your feet. You live in by far the least free state in the US and that isn't likely to change in the next couple decades.

http://s23.postimg.org/ynwqz5stl/nytonh.jpg

[TomtheTinker]

Rand needs to embrace marijuana legalization and ending the War on Drugs. I'm sick and tired of his pandering and posturing.

If you want a purist flame thrower find one and support him or her..I may join you. Rand is what he is a politically viable libertarian leaning senator from Kentucky with a solid voting record in which even a purist would find preferable although not ideal.

[TomtheTinker]

You're kidding, right? When I approached the NY Republican Liberty Caucus in 2007 about getting behind Paul in the primaries, the feedback I got was that they were leaning towards Giuliani! Some "real capacity" for liberty that is.

People have the capacity to change.especially when their political values are based on limited information. I bet there is a solid % of folks on this forum at 1 time or another supported politicians similar t Rudy if not Rudy himself. We all(myself included) need to stop treating the world as our enemy.

[Rocco]

Have you been involved since? We have a great core of liberty lovers that spawned specifically from Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns. We have a few candidates running in local elections and a new grassroots PAC which has been started. Besides, what is the alternative? The NY LP, who just elected Gigi Bowman their vice chair? Yeah, no thanks.


You're kidding, right? When I approached the NY Republican Liberty Caucus in 2007 about getting behind Paul in the primaries, the feedback I got was that they were leaning towards Giuliani! Some "real capacity" for liberty that is.

[Rocco]

I also have a family business that owns 200+ apartments smack in the middle of this state and we can't go anywhere. We cant just pick our business up and move. Writing off entire states is foolish.


Dude, New Hampshire is only an hour away from New York. We are talking less than 46 miles. There is no need to die on your feet. You live in by far the least free state in the US and that isn't likely to change in the next couple decades.

http://s23.postimg.org/ynwqz5stl/nytonh.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

You're kidding, right? When I approached the NY Republican Liberty Caucus in 2007 about getting behind Paul in the primaries, the feedback I got was that they were leaning towards Giuliani! Some "real capacity" for liberty that is.LOL...not really surprised. If I've learned anything in the last year (give or take a month or two) it's that the word "liberty" means different things to different people. Go figure.

[Christian Liberty]

LOL...not really surprised. If I've learned anything in the last year (give or take a month or two) it's that the word "liberty" means different things to different people. Go figure.

Yep. There are only negative rights. That's real liberty.


I guess that depends on what a libertarian is. If rand took the worlds smallest political quiz, he might score libertarian and that would make him a libertarian.


I'm looking at that test right now, he definitely wouldn't score perfectly on it. He'd "Disagree" with both the legalize drugs and the social security abolishment elimination questions. That means at best he'd get 80%/80%, and that test's results are inflated anyway since its an LP recruiting tool.





Nah. No way to fix The Empire State before other states are fixed. The only hope is to leave NY or find a cave in Mount Marcy and hide in it. Or hope that places like NH and ID become free and the freedom eventually spreads to NY.

Yeah, pretty much this. I don't plan on staying too long...

Dude, New Hampshire is only an hour away from New York. We are talking less than 46 miles. There is no need to die on your feet. You live in by far the least free state in the US and that isn't likely to change in the next couple decades.

http://s23.postimg.org/ynwqz5stl/nytonh.jpg

Is it really "Far" worse than California? I mean, I've never been to Cali so I don't really know. And doesn't the distance betweenNY and NH depend on where in the state you live? I know I'm far more than 46 miles fron NH, but then, I'm in the back corner of LI.

Or did you mean NYC?

[Keith and stuff]

http://s23.postimg.org/ynwqz5stl/nytonh.jpg

Is it really "Far" worse than California? I mean, I've never been to Cali so I don't really know. And doesn't the distance betweenNY and NH depend on where in the state you live? I know I'm far more than 46 miles fron NH, but then, I'm in the back corner of LI.

Or did you mean NYC?
That is a Google map that shows NY, VT and NH. It is of very low quality so let me say what it says. It shows a route from NH to NY through VT. It says 1 hour, 1 min. It also says 45.6 miles or something. From NH to NYC is 4 hours or 8, depending on traffic. And it depends from where in NH to where in NYC. I just Googled this from: Pittsburg, NH to: New York, NY (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Pittsburg,+NH&daddr=New+York,+NY) and it says 7 hour, 11 min. Who knows, with horrible traffic in a snow storm, that might end up being 15 hours.

From Nashua, NH to Long Island is around 3 1/2 hours according to Google but that doesn't include waiting for the fairy or the actual ride on the fairy.

I would say that NYC, particularly, is substantially less free than most of the US. I actually disagree with quite a few parts of the Freedom in the 50 States stuff so I wouldn't consider this a definitive source but here is what the most recent Report says about NY. I think NY might even been less free since the Report gathered data because since then, the bad gun laws passed.

Analysis

New York is by far the least free state in the Union. It is therefore no surprise that New York residents have been heading for the exits: 9.0 percent of the state’s 2000 population, on net, left the state for another state between 2000 and 2011, the highest such figure in the nation.1

New York has, by a wide margin, the highest taxes in the country: 14.0 percent of income, three and a half standard deviations above the national mean. New York is also the most indebted state, setting its own record high in FY 2010 at 33.2 percent of income. By comparison, government consumption plus subsidies and employment are only ranked slightly higher than average, implying that the state could benefit by shifting revenue sources from taxation and license fees to user fees.

New York fares poorly on economic regulation. New York City has rent control, which is estimated to cost residents about $300 million in deadweight loss alone.2 Eminent domain abuse is rampant. Labor law is poor, with no right-to-work law, restrictions on workers’ compensation funding options, and a required short-term disability program. New York has the strictest health insurance community rating regulations in the United States, which have wiped out the nongroup market. There has also been a dramatic increase in mandated coverages in 2009—10, rising to 54.9 percent of the cost of a no-mandated-benefit policy. On the positive side, the court system is slightly better than average. While insurance regulation remains strict, there has been a slight liberalization of personal auto insurance in 2009—10.

On personal freedoms, gun control laws are extremely restrictive, but marijuana laws are ranked better than average. Tobacco laws are extremely strict, and cigarette taxes are the highest in the country, encouraging the growth of a dangerous black market.3 Motorists are highly regulated, and home school regulations are excessive, but alcohol taxes are low, and so are non-drug victimless crimes arrests and the crime-adjusted incarceration rate. Same-sex marriage was legalized in 2011, which should raise the state about three places on personal freedom.
http://freedominthe50states.org/overall/new-york

Anyway, back to Rand Paul. I think his performance today was amazing. He was trolling the bureaucrat. He reminded me of some of the Free Keene people.

[T.hill]

Well, is there really a difference in saying I want local adjudication and I want to legalize drugs on the Federal level?

[Christian Liberty]

Rand thinks people who use drugs should be punished by guys with guns...

[TheGrinch]

Rand thinks people who use drugs should be punished by guys with guns...

It's one thing when you derail threads with nonsense, but you're rapidly turning into a troll.

“I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake," Paul explained. "There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married and they quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives."

"Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and I really think, you know, look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives," Paul added. "They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky. They don't have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake."

Also, has Rand spoken out about the states that have legalized pot? Has he said he would fight against a bill if Kentuckians wanted to legalize or decriminalize it? No, then who cares what his preference is. He can have convictions you don't agree with, while still understanding that it's an issue best left to the people of those states.

You know, we can continue to fight that fight without Rand, just like it's always been done and with success in several states, and Rand can continue to fight his battles. Stop being one of those who treats those who are with us 90% and have integrity as if they're the problem. It seriously makes me question your intentions here.

[Christian Liberty]

It's one thing when you derail threads with nonsense, but you're rapidly turning into a troll.

“I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake," Paul explained. "There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married and they quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives."

"Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and I really think, you know, look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives," Paul added. "They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky. They don't have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake."

Also, has Rand spoken out about the states that have legalized pot? Has he said he would fight against a bill if Kentuckians wanted to legalize or decriminalize it? No, then who cares what his preference is. He can have convictions you don't agree with, while still understanding that it's an issue best left to the people of those states.

You know, we can continue to fight that fight without Rand, just like it's always been done and with success in several states, and Rand can continue to fight his battles. Stop being one of those who treats those who are with us 90% and have integrity as if they're the problem. It seriously makes me question your intentions here.

Yes, I know he doesn't want to put them in jail, but he still wants to punish them. Therefore, he's not a libertarian. I didn't even say anything about supporting him or otherwise here. He's just not a libertarian if he believes that. Seriously, that's not really controversial.

[ClydeCoulter]

@TheGrinch,
Nah, FreedomFanatic is not a troll. He's young and he understands what it would mean to go to prison for nothing but a weed. He wants it to stop "NOW", along with the killing of innocent people. I do too. That's why the war on drugs and foreign policy are so important, perhaps more important than the Fed and debt at this point (imho).

[Keith and stuff]

Yes, I know he doesn't want to put them in jail, but he still wants to punish them. Therefore, he's not a libertarian. I didn't even say anything about supporting him or otherwise here. He's just not a libertarian if he believes that. Seriously, that's not really controversial.

I thought you said he might be an 80%/80% on this quiz? It looks like you could be 70%/70% and still be a libertarian.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000204714/polls_415px_Worlds_Smallest_Political_Quiz.svg_123 1_387664_poll_xlarge.png

[TheGrinch]

Yes, I know he doesn't want to put them in jail, but he still wants to punish them.

So when his dad supported state's rights to choose on their drug laws, was that un-libertarian? Since afterall, according to your logic, he wants to put them jail if he allows states to choose to..

Both Pauls do not promote marijuana use. Sure Rand is doing more to disassociate himself from that label, but both of their positions are abundantly clear, leave it up to the states. Again, why should I care if he perhaps prefers non-prison penalties (which would still be a huge step in the right direction to keep non-violent offenders from being incarcerated), if he's leaving it up the states. It may not be libertarian, but it is certainly constitutionalist and pragmatically the same as his father's position.

It also bears mentioning his success in legalizing industrial hemp will go much further towards people realizing the economic benefits rather than costs, far more than his endorsement of the behavior (that would only be damaging to his own goals) ever would. States leading by example is what will change the opinions of the country. Rand trying to force-feed them something they don't accept will not.

And no, you're not talking about not supporting him, but you're unfairly fueling divisiveness on the issue by making him sound like an authoritarian, when in reality his position is not fundamentally different than his dads.

Rand doesn't claim to be a libertarian (even if this article wants to imply that he's part of a larger libertarian movement, which he is, libertarian-leaning republicans are not our enemies), so no, you're exactly right, it's not contreversial for him to not take a libertarian, but rather constitutionalist view on the issue. Both he and his dad are traditional conservatives who don't promote drug use, so big freaking whoop as long as he isn't going to stand in the way of states who want to legalize or decriminalize it.

[Christian Liberty]

@TheGrinch,
Nah, FreedomFanatic is not a troll. He's young and he understands what it would mean to go to prison for nothing but a weed. He wants it to stop "NOW", along with the killing of innocent people. I do too. That's why the war on drugs and foreign policy are so important, perhaps more important than the Fed and debt at this point (imho).

I've never done pot, or any other illegal drug, but I have seen a jail on a field trip, so I have a rough idea as to how much that would suck. Just from the couple hours I saw, its dehumanizing.

Rand, to his credit, doesn't want anyone to go to jail for weed. But he still doesn't have the libertarian view on the issue.


I thought you said he might be an 80%/80% on this quiz? It looks like you could be 70%/70% and still be a libertarian.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000204714/polls_415px_Worlds_Smallest_Political_Quiz.svg_123 1_387664_poll_xlarge.png

On that test, yeah, which is an LP recruiting tool and is trying to create the biggest tent possible. I don't consider anyone who wants to punish drug users to be a libertarian.

Truth be told, I'm still supporting Rand... and the only thing I can see him doing to change that is to vote in favor of that Iran resolution. But he still isn't a libertarian.

[TheGrinch]

@TheGrinch,
Nah, FreedomFanatic is not a troll. He's young and he understands what it would mean to go to prison for nothing but a weed. He wants it to stop "NOW", along with the killing of innocent people. I do too. That's why the war on drugs and foreign policy are so important, perhaps more important than the Fed and debt at this point (imho).

I do too from personal experience, however I'm not going to misrepresent Rand and act like he's an authoritarian to do so.

Would I love it if Rand spoke more about the dangerous black market and enabling criminals that this is creating? Of course, but he has his battles to wage, and we have ours. As long as he doesn't support the federal drug war and wants to let states decide, then he is most definitely not standing in the way of our progress that is happening without him.

[cajuncocoa]

@TheGrinch,
Nah, FreedomFanatic is not a troll. He's young and he understands what it would mean to go to prison for nothing but a weed. He wants it to stop "NOW", along with the killing of innocent people. I do too. That's why the war on drugs and foreign policy are so important, perhaps more important than the Fed and debt at this point (imho).^^This.

[cajuncocoa]

I thought you said he might be an 80%/80% on this quiz? It looks like you could be 70%/70% and still be a libertarian.
Rand doesn't WANT to be a libertarian. Why not respect the man enough to grant his wish not to use that label on him?

[Christian Liberty]

[QUOTE=TheGrinchWhoStoleDC;5035638]So when his dad supported state's rights to choose on their drug laws, was that un-libertarian? Since afterall, according to your logic, he wants to put them jail if he allows states to choose to..

Not at all, the VAST majority of libertarians would not use the Federal government to change state drug laws, and neither would I. Murray Rothbard and Stephan Kinsella oppose(d) doing that too. That's a pretty noncontroversial libertarian position, for the most part, decentralization is better. I see no reason a libertarian COULDN'T disagree with that, but most don't, and I certainly don't. The Federal Government is definitely the bigger enemy here.

Ron Paul would never have PREVENTED a state from imprisoning drug users, but he's still made it very clear that he does not agree with that.

As a pragmatic issue, yeah, you're correct, it doesn't really matter, but philosophically, a libertarian isn't going to support state laws against drugs.


[QUOTE]Both Pauls do not promote marijuana use. Sure Rand is doing more to disassociate himself from that label, but both of their positions are abundantly clear, leave it up to the states. Again, why should I care if he perhaps prefers non-prison penalties (which would still be a huge step in the right direction to keep non-violent offenders from being incarcerated), if he's leaving it up the states. It may not be libertarian, but it is certainly constitutionalist and pragmatically the same as his father's position.


Didn't Rand say he doesn't want to leave it to the states, or at least imply such? I'm not certain what his position is ATM. Maybe you shouldn't care, but its still not libertarian to support the regulation of drugs at any level.

For the record, I don't promote pot use either. Being unapologetic about the right to put whatever crap you want into your body is NOT the same thing as promoting every choice you could make in that regard.


It also bears mentioning his success in legalizing industrial hemp will go much further towards people realizing the economic benefits rather than costs, far more than his endorsement of the behavior (that would only be damaging to his own goals) ever would. States leading by example is what will change the opinions of the country. Rand trying to force-feed them something they don't accept will not.

Again, I don't ENDORSE marijuana. Supporting legalization is not endorsement.


And no, you're not talking about not supporting him, but you're unfairly fueling divisiveness on the issue by making him sound like an authoritarian, when in reality his position is not fundamentally different than his dads.

There are libertarians, and then there are degrees of authoritarianism. Rand Paul is much less authoritarian on this issue than others, but he's still not really a libertarian on the issue. I don't really care if that's "Devisive" that's what it is, and honestly, me pointing this stuff out is probably helping him anyway.


Rand doesn't claim to be a libertarian (even if this article wants to imply that he's part of a larger libertarian movement, which he is, libertarian-leaning republicans are not our enemies), so no, you're exactly right, it's not contreversial for him to not take a libertarian, but rather constitutionalist view on the issue. Both he and his dad are traditional conservatives who don't promote drug use, so big freaking whoop as long as he isn't going to stand in the way of states who want to legalize or decriminalize it.

Rand doesn't claim to be a libertarian, and good for him... he's intellectually honest. The writer of the article is not.

[TheGrinch]

But he still isn't a libertarian.

Great point to mention that the constitutionalist libertarian republican who claims he's not a libertarian, isn't a libertarian.

Hit me up when he starts supporting the federal drug war and stops supporting the people of the state's rights to choose (again, the same position his father had). Until then it serves no purpose but divisiveness for you to fixate on this.

[Christian Liberty]

Great point to mention that the constitutionalist libertarian republican who claims he's not a libertarian, isn't a libertarian.

Thus, I'm indirectly defending Rand here. My issue was with the article, not Rand Paul himself, in this instance.



Hit me up when he starts supporting the federal drug war and stops supporting the people of the state's rights to choose (again, the same position his father had). Until then it serves no purpose but divisiveness for you to fixate on this.

He's already said he wants to keep the current Federal Laws and just lower the penalties.

[TheGrinch]

Thus, I'm indirectly defending Rand here. My issue was with the article, not Rand Paul himself, in this instance.




He's already said he wants to keep the current Federal Laws and just lower the penalties.

Link?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand needs to embrace marijuana legalization and ending the War on Drugs. I'm sick and tired of his pandering and posturing.
Either run for office yourself, or wait till the general election between Rand vs. Hillary.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's one thing when you derail threads with nonsense, but you're rapidly turning into a troll.

“I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake," Paul explained. "There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married and they quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives."

"Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and I really think, you know, look what would have happened, it would have ruined their lives," Paul added. "They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky. They don't have good attorneys, and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake."

Also, has Rand spoken out about the states that have legalized pot? Has he said he would fight against a bill if Kentuckians wanted to legalize or decriminalize it? No, then who cares what his preference is. He can have convictions you don't agree with, while still understanding that it's an issue best left to the people of those states.

You know, we can continue to fight that fight without Rand, just like it's always been done and with success in several states, and Rand can continue to fight his battles. Stop being one of those who treats those who are with us 90% and have integrity as if they're the problem. It seriously makes me question your intentions here.
Well said.

[Bastiat's The Law]

So when his dad supported state's rights to choose on their drug laws, was that un-libertarian? Since afterall, according to your logic, he wants to put them jail if he allows states to choose to..

Both Pauls do not promote marijuana use. Sure Rand is doing more to disassociate himself from that label, but both of their positions are abundantly clear, leave it up to the states. Again, why should I care if he perhaps prefers non-prison penalties (which would still be a huge step in the right direction to keep non-violent offenders from being incarcerated), if he's leaving it up the states. It may not be libertarian, but it is certainly constitutionalist and pragmatically the same as his father's position.

It also bears mentioning his success in legalizing industrial hemp will go much further towards people realizing the economic benefits rather than costs, far more than his endorsement of the behavior (that would only be damaging to his own goals) ever would. States leading by example is what will change the opinions of the country. Rand trying to force-feed them something they don't accept will not.

And no, you're not talking about not supporting him, but you're unfairly fueling divisiveness on the issue by making him sound like an authoritarian, when in reality his position is not fundamentally different than his dads.

Rand doesn't claim to be a libertarian (even if this article wants to imply that he's part of a larger libertarian movement, which he is, libertarian-leaning republicans are not our enemies), so no, you're exactly right, it's not contreversial for him to not take a libertarian, but rather constitutionalist view on the issue. Both he and his dad are traditional conservatives who don't promote drug use, so big freaking whoop as long as he isn't going to stand in the way of states who want to legalize or decriminalize it.
Let us not forget that Portugal and Amsterdam aren't fully legal or libertarian utopias either. There are still many laws on the books concerning use, sales, quantity one may carry, manufacturing, and distribution. There are still drug courts or a review board of sorts that you may be brought in front of if your drug use is out of hand in Portugal. They are still seen and bastions of individual freedom on this issue and light-years ahead of any other country. Idealists are trying to go from point A to point Z and there's no real world example of this end point utopia. Doesn't mean it isn't worth striving for, but they don't realize this will be a thousand step process to get their fellow citizens to go along with it. Getting Rand elected is step number one, he's the first domino. He'll be the first President in modern history to give these issues serious thought and won't laugh it off like Obama and his predecessors. You will need Rand to comfort and educate the soccer moms out there that have the clout to scuttle this boat before its launched. Timothy Leary types won't cut it.

[LibertyEagle]

@TheGrinch,
Nah, FreedomFanatic is not a troll. He's young and he understands what it would mean to go to prison for nothing but a weed. He wants it to stop "NOW", along with the killing of innocent people. I do too. That's why the war on drugs and foreign policy are so important, perhaps more important than the Fed and debt at this point (imho).

Well, goody. But, surely you realize that if he led with those things, he would be sidelined just like his father was. The people he has been getting to about foreign aid, drones, war, and all the rest, would slam their ears shut and he would make no more progress with them, much less have a prayer in Hell of getting the Republican nomination for President. Not to mention the fact that he wouldn't get anywhere with ending the war on drugs, if done the way you suggest.

He has tried the in your face method on more than one issue. Consider foreign aid. He put forth a bill to end ALL foreign aid, right then. It failed MISERABLY. So, what did he do? Keep on resubmitting the same damn bill over and over again, only to watch it fail over and over again? No, even though some here probably would have loved that. What he did was regroup and go about it another way. He decided to chip away at it and lead people towards the end goal. Using this approach, he has a very good chance at getting it done. The same thing goes with drugs. He has to position it in a way that it will be accepted by the audience he is trying to reach. He is unbrainwashing them as he goes.

So, do you want it done, or is it only good if it is done YOUR WAY. Nevermind that YOUR WAY would fail miserably.

Sheesh.

[James Madison]

We don't have enough time to go step-by-step over a few generations. The Drug War needs to end NOW.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I do too from personal experience, however I'm not going to misrepresent Rand and act like he's an authoritarian to do so.

Would I love it if Rand spoke more about the dangerous black market and enabling criminals that this is creating? Of course, but he has his battles to wage, and we have ours. As long as he doesn't support the federal drug war and wants to let states decide, then he is most definitely not standing in the way of our progress that is happening without him.
Don't make the Air Force do the job of the Navy. I like the two-pronged approach of Rand working the bully-pulpit and easing the public into it and scaling back federal enforcement; while every one of us work in each particular state.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well, goody. But, surely you realize that if he led with those things, he would be sidelined just like his father was. The people he has been getting to about foreign aid, drones, war, and all the rest, would slam their ears shut and he would make no more progress with them, much less have a prayer in Hell of getting the Republican nomination for President. Not to mention the fact that he wouldn't get anywhere with ending the war on drugs, if done the way you suggest.

He has tried the in your face method on more than one issue. Consider foreign aid. He put forth a bill to end ALL foreign aid, right then. It failed MISERABLY. So, what did he do? Keep on resubmitting the same damn bill over and over again, only to watch it fail over and over again? No, even though some here probably would have loved that. What he did was regroup and go about it another way. He decided to chip away at it and lead people towards the end goal. Using this approach, he has a very good chance at getting it done. The same thing goes with drugs. He has to position it in a way that it will be accepted by the audience he is trying to reach. He is unbrainwashing them as he goes.

So, do you want it done, or is it only good if it is done YOUR WAY. Nevermind that YOUR WAY would fail miserably.

Sheesh.

This bares repeating a thousand times over. You would think we'd learn from what the progressives have done to us over the past century. They not only changed the laws and political landscape of this country, but the entire psyche of the populace for generations to come.

[John F Kennedy III]

I also have a family business that owns 200+ apartments smack in the middle of this state and we can't go anywhere. We cant just pick our business up and move. Writing off entire states is foolish.

Why not sell those 200 apartments and 200 in NH?