PDA

View Full Version : Is Rand Paul A Radical?




trey4sports
05-21-2013, 11:58 PM
I'm not asking how you think Rand Paul will govern as president nor the positions he has taken in the last several months in order to advance his political ambitions I'm asking if you believe that Rand Paul, at his core, is a radical minarchist like his father.

Do you believe that ideologically he feels as most on this forum do? Do you think he believes that the drug war violates our right to self-ownership? Do you believe that he believes the income tax is unjust and pure theft? Do you believe that Rand Paul believes that the United States ought to JUST COME HOME ALREADY!?

This is just for fun. I tend to think he's pretty close to his father in terms of ideological belief but he believes that he can achieve more in a different fashion.

TheGrinch
05-22-2013, 12:15 AM
I don't think there's any doubt that there's a degree of pragmatism in how he conducts himself. He said as much about the Romney endorsement in a Schiff interview shortly after, that it was something he HAD to do to work within the party, they were threatening to paint him in a corner as a "fake republican" like they did his dad. They told him this.

However, I don't think he's being that dishonest, but rather taking the view that you don't always have to tell people everything about what you really think to take a stand for something.

He's also said that he's "realist" and not in the dishonest way, but rather the recognition that idealism is often impossible in our current landscape. I think that is what he's trying to change, and it's working.

That's my take anyway, but you know, it doesn't take evidence to give someone the benefit of the doubt, that's the recognition that you don't have enough evidence to think otherwise, but those levying accusations would be wise to have good evidence before disavowing the best senator we have. That much we do have evidence of right now.

NationalAnarchist
05-22-2013, 07:17 AM
Not even close...the closer we get to 2016 the more neo conish he becomes IMO

69360
05-22-2013, 07:19 AM
No he's not.

He feels the same way as I do, but not the way most of this forum does. Prime example is 75+ pages of defending Adam Kokesh, who I do see as a radical and who was banned from Paul events.

Neil Desmond
05-22-2013, 07:24 AM
Not even close...the closer we get to 2016 the more neo conish he becomes IMO
With his rhetoric, or his actions?

wormyguy
05-22-2013, 08:12 AM
I think he probably wants to go further on foreign policy, the drug war, the Great Society and New Deal, etc., than he lets on.

HOWEVER

I think Rand is very much in the trap identified by Murray Rothbard in the following passage from The Ethics of Liberty:



Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong—in fact, it would be all to the good—to step up the pace to cutting the budget by 25 percent a year for four years, or, most desirably, by cutting it by 100 percent immediately. The danger arises in implying, directly or indirectly that any faster pace than 10 percent would be wrong or undesirable.

An even greater danger of a similar sort is posed by the idea of many libertarians of setting forth a comprehensive and planned program of transition to total liberty, e.g., that in Year 1 law A should be repealed, law B modified, tax C be cut by 20 percent, etc.; in Year 2 law D be repealed, tax C cut by a further 10 percent, etc. The comprehensive plan is far more misleading than the simple budget cut, because it strongly implies that, for example, law D should not be repealed until the second year of this planned program. Hence, the trap of philosophic gradualism, of gradualism-in-theory, would be fallen into on a massive scale. The would-be libertarian planners would be virtually falling into a position, or seeming to, of opposing a faster pace toward liberty.

There is, indeed, another grave flaw in the idea of a comprehensive planned program toward liberty. For the very care and studied pace, the very all-embracing nature of the program, implies that the State is not really the enemy of mankind, that it is possible and desirable to use the State in engineering a planned and measured pace toward liberty. The insight that the State is the permanent enemy of mankind, on the other hand, leads to a very different strategic outlook: namely that libertarians push for and accept with alacrity any reduction of State power or State activity on any front; any such reduction at any time is a reduction in crime and aggression, and is a reduction of the parasitic malignity with which State power rules over and confiscates social power.

For example, libertarians may well push for drastic reduction, or repeal, of the income tax; but they should never do so while at the same time advocating its replacement by a sales or other form of tax. The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a step toward liberty; but its replacement by a new or increased tax elsewhere does just the opposite, for it signifies a new and additional imposition of the State on some other front. The imposition of a new tax is a means that contradicts the libertarian goal itself.


I very much doubt that Rand, as President, would use his constitutional or congressionally-granted powers to, for example, change the schedule of illegal drugs (to make them legal), or remove EPA/FDA/OSHA etc. regulations by executive order, or use his power as commander in chief to bring the troops home from Germany, Japan, South Korea etc., or reverse the executive orders that eliminated the gold standard, or use the power of pardon to eliminate victimless crimes or even cut/remove taxes, etc.

Even though those would all indisputably be in his power to do as President, I very much doubt he would, for fear of seeming too "radical." This is unfortunate, because it is impossible to achieve radical goals without "seeming radical." If Rand in fact becomes President and does one of the things I listed above, I'd be pleasantly surprised.

compromise
05-22-2013, 08:24 AM
Depends what you mean by radical. In moderate circles, yes, Rand Paul is a radical. Even in conservative circles, Rand Paul remains a radical. In libertarian circles, probably not.

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 08:37 AM
A true radical wouldn't worry about what stuffed-shirt Republicans think of him in order to get elected. Rand is becoming more mainstream every day. A good thing for politics, but not for the radical change we need.

JCDenton0451
05-22-2013, 09:00 AM
I voted yes, because I consider Rand a fairly radical social-conservative, whose position on abortion is waaay outside of American mainstream.

I don't know what 'minarchist' means.

Sola_Fide
05-22-2013, 09:02 AM
No he's not.

He feels the same way as I do, but not the way most of this forum does. Prime example is 75+ pages of defending Adam Kokesh, who I do see as a radical and who was banned from Paul events.

But wasn't he banned by Benton? There are probably a lot of us here that Benton wouldn't like. That argument doesn't seem persuasive to me.

trey4sports
05-22-2013, 09:42 AM
TTT

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 09:47 AM
Not even close...the closer we get to 2016 the more neo conish he becomes IMO

You don't even know what that means, clearly. Here, read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html).

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 09:49 AM
But wasn't he banned by Benton? There are probably a lot of us here that Benton wouldn't like. That argument doesn't seem persuasive to me.

Who knows, but I would have. Are you forgetting the venomous videos being put out by Kokesh??? I wouldn't have wanted him 5 miles within Ron's vicinity.

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 09:53 AM
A true radical wouldn't worry about what stuffed-shirt Republicans think of him in order to get elected. Rand is becoming more mainstream every day.
So, you are saying that his father is a liar, right? The same father that said that he and his son agreed on 99% of the issues. Oh, I think I understand now, Ron also said this. "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." It seems like you fit that description well.


A good thing for politics, but not for the radical change we need.

Someone who acted like you wanted wouldn't stand a chance at getting elected. Rand has the principles AND he has the pragmatism to get them across to people. Something we have needed for so very long.

donnay
05-22-2013, 10:13 AM
His father is a radical and always went head-on against the status quo. His son does not have the integrity and character his father has I afraid. :(

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 10:13 AM
For crying out loud, it should be crystal clear why Ron made that 99% comment. He's supporting his son AS A FATHER.

Of course he doesn't want a wedge between him and his own son...they're FAMILY.

That doesn't mean, at least to me, that Ron and Rand are literally only 1% apart on issues; nor does it make Ron a liar for making the comment. Since opinions aren't measured quantitatively anyway, it's pretty much meaningless.

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 10:16 AM
His father is a radical and always went head-on against the status quo. His son does not have the integrity and character his father has I afraid. :(

Give me a freaking break, Donnay!!


"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

Don't you think his father knows?

Rand is using an approach that is getting through to people that RON COULD NOT REACH. And we have to reach them, if we stand a chance in hell. Why can't some of you understand that? WE are not the audience. But, we are acting like such crybabies and panty waists that we resemble his worst enemies. It is flat out disgusting.

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 10:20 AM
For crying out loud, it should be crystal clear why Ron made that 99% comment. He's supporting his son AS A FATHER.

Of course he doesn't want a wedge between him and his own son...they're FAMILY.

That doesn't mean, at least to me, that Ron and Rand are literally only 1% apart on issues; nor does it make Ron a liar for making the comment. Since opinions aren't measured quantitatively anyway, it's pretty much meaningless.

I could care less what YOU think, as your behavior is of that of a troll, at best, and a plant, at worst.

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 10:21 AM
His father is a radical and always went head-on against the status quo. His son does not have the integrity and character his father has I afraid. :(
You may as well have told LE that Justin Bieber is ugly. :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
05-22-2013, 10:26 AM
You may as well have told LE that Justin Bieber is ugly. :rolleyes:

Justin who? Is he some hero of yours or something?

jct74
05-22-2013, 10:30 AM
His father is a radical and always went head-on against the status quo. His son does not have the integrity and character his father has I afraid. :(

BS. Just because he chooses a slightly different path to achieve his political goals does not mean he is lacking character and integrity.

I have great respect for the man, he is fighting hard for us in Washington every day when he was probably much happier as a small town doctor spending time with his family watching his kids grow up and living a much more stress-free life.

Aldanga
05-22-2013, 10:30 AM
I believe he is far more radical than he lets on. Rand appears to be trying a different path in hopes that it will work. Is it possible that he's been corrupted in his pursuit? Yes, but I will wait and see. I believe he's the best chance we have at the moment. Until he shows otherwise, I will tentatively support him.

I also support Adam and other "radicals" who "hurt the movement", because they're willing to push boundaries. We will never advance unless we are willing to push boundaries. Do what you know best for liberty. Decide the best way to use your talents to advance the destruction of the regime, and then do those things.

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 10:33 AM
Justin who? Is he some hero of yours or something?
I'm not into hero worship.

Justin Bieber is a teenage idol.

EBounding
05-22-2013, 10:36 AM
Is Gary Johnson a radical?

donnay
05-22-2013, 10:37 AM
Give me a freaking break, Donnay!!



Don't you think his father knows?

Rand is using an approach that is getting through to people that RON COULD NOT REACH. And we have to reach them, if we stand a chance in hell. Why can't some of you understand that? WE are not the audience. But, we are acting like such crybabies and panty waists that we resemble his worst enemies. It is flat out disgusting.


Sorry, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Playing party politics has gotten this country where it is today. We need radical change, not someone who acquiesces and compromises more of our liberties for the sake of playing some kind of game.

donnay
05-22-2013, 10:46 AM
BS. Just because he chooses a slightly different path to achieve his political goals does not mean he is lacking character and integrity.

I have great respect for the man, he is fighting hard for us in Washington every day when he was probably much happier as a small town doctor spending time with his family watching his kids grow up and living a much more stress-free life.

That's great I am happy for you. That does not make my comments any lesser. Rand is not radical enough, IMHO. Voting in this country is not the way to make radical change--speaking out against injustices are. Ron Paul does and takes heat for it every time--that's radical.

FSP-Rebel
05-22-2013, 10:50 AM
I don't think there's any doubt that there's a degree of pragmatism in how he conducts himself. He said as much about the Romney endorsement in a Schiff interview shortly after, that it was something he HAD to do to work within the party, they were threatening to paint him in a corner as a "fake republican" like they did his dad. They told him this.

However, I don't think he's being that dishonest, but rather taking the view that you don't always have to tell people everything about what you really think to take a stand for something.

He's also said that he's "realist" and not in the dishonest way, but rather the recognition that idealism is often impossible in our current landscape. I think that is what he's trying to change, and it's working.

That's my take anyway, but you know, it doesn't take evidence to give someone the benefit of the doubt, that's the recognition that you don't have enough evidence to think otherwise, but those levying accusations would be wise to have good evidence before disavowing the best senator we have. That much we do have evidence of right now.
Bingo

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 10:56 AM
Sorry, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Playing party politics has gotten this country where it is today. We need radical change, not someone who acquiesces and compromises more of our liberties for the sake of playing some kind of game.
Bingo.

FSP-Rebel
05-22-2013, 10:57 AM
Sorry, I just call 'em as I see 'em. Playing party politics has gotten this country where it is today. We need radical change, not someone who acquiesces and compromises more of our liberties for the sake of playing some kind of game.
Actually, very few of the people that have engaged themselves now were involved in any substantial way prior to Ron in the same ways they are now. We didn't have a decent roster of people in Congress and on farm teams throughout the country nor much of a liberty influence in local and state parties plus folk on the RNC. Radical change won't happen but for some substantial crash which I think the elites have buffer zones in place to transition out of it in that case. Either way, we need people like us in better positions and actively engaged in any event. Far too many people bs the restore the GOP route for whatever excuse despite real, tangible evidence that it's working where all else hasn't been. For instance, if the listeners of AJ actually were active in the GOP w/o their usual talking points they'd have major influence to go along with the other liberty crowd and I believe with all engaged we can makeover every state GOP. Yet, when people aren't engaged, those of us who are come up short sometimes.

FSP-Rebel
05-22-2013, 11:05 AM
Bingo.
Exactly, I know how some of you operate. Sit on a forum and pick apart any alleged liberty candidate or politician as much as possible and do little if anything to help elect more. I'll take all the 80%+ that I can get cause only perfect comes in a genie bottle. Once again, the good is always the enemy of the perfect and that's what you're really all about. Rand's record is very strong and comparable to Ron's yet you lump him in with Bentivolio who isn't really all that bad lately.Rand isn't compromising, he's just pushing libertarian issues in a way that you're not happy with so it's time to burn him at the stake. That's how far out some of you are but you seem to be happy so I'm happy for you.

donnay
05-22-2013, 11:18 AM
Actually, very few of the people that have engaged themselves now were involved in any substantial way prior to Ron in the same ways they are now. We didn't have a decent roster of people in Congress and on farm teams throughout the country nor much of a liberty influence in local and state parties plus folk on the RNC. Radical change won't happen but for some substantial crash which I think the elites have buffer zones in place to transition out of it in that case. Either way, we need people like us in better positions and actively engaged in any event. Far too many people bs the restore the GOP route for whatever excuse despite real, tangible evidence that it's working where all else hasn't been. For instance, if the listeners of AJ actually were active in the GOP w/o their usual talking points they'd have major influence to go along with the other liberty crowd and I believe with all engaged we can makeover every state GOP. Yet, when people aren't engaged, those of us who are come up short sometimes.


I hate politics for this very reason. The false left/right paradigm continues to suck people right in. The hijacked government, current in place, are not going to willingly give up their power, that took them years to acquire. The only way we can take down this illegitimate government is to expose it through education and radical change.

So many people act as though Rand is some kind of 007. Cloak and dagger politics is a bunch of nonsense. While we are waiting for radical change the incremental tyranny goes forward.

John F Kennedy III
05-22-2013, 11:24 AM
Rand is far from radical.

FSP-Rebel
05-22-2013, 11:33 AM
The only way we can take down this illegitimate government is to expose it through education and radical change.
Agreed, we the people need to be active in educating people, much of the time this happens in political races and through meetings whether they be Tea Party, republican clubs, C4L hangouts, etc.



So many people act as though Rand is some kind of 007. Cloak and dagger politics is a bunch of nonsense. While we are waiting for radical change the incremental tyranny goes forward.
It's as simple as Rand weighing in on an issue and and measuring how libertarian he can speak on it to not put off his intended audience, that's being a salesman. Also, there's the case of media demagoguery involved and they'd pick a Libertarian candidate clean if they ever felt threatened by them. In the mean time, Rand has used parliamentary tactics to strip certain bills of their anti-liberty measures and outright stopped entire pieces of legislation. I'd say as we elect more allies for him and Amash/Massie, we'll see the incremental tyranny stopped and reversed. I'd want to be a part of that.

cajuncocoa
05-22-2013, 11:41 AM
Exactly, I know how some of you operate. Sit on a forum and pick apart any alleged liberty candidate or politician as much as possible and do little if anything to help elect more. I'll take all the 80%+ that I can get cause only perfect comes in a genie bottle. Once again, the good is always the enemy of the perfect and that's what you're really all about. Rand's record is very strong and comparable to Ron's yet you lump him in with Bentivolio who isn't really all that bad lately.Rand isn't compromising, he's just pushing libertarian issues in a way that you're not happy with so it's time to burn him at the stake. That's how far out some of you are but you seem to be happy so I'm happy for you.You see it as doing nothing because you only see the political process as the one and only way to accomplish the goal. I happen to believe that's the least effective way (especially since the electorate is woefully uneducated). If I were interested in pursuing the political process, I might be willing to accept 80%....but 80% free isn't really free, is it?

Christian Liberty
05-22-2013, 11:47 AM
Who knows, but I would have. Are you forgetting the venomous videos being put out by Kokesh??? I wouldn't have wanted him 5 miles within Ron's vicinity.

What videos?


So, you are saying that his father is a liar, right? The same father that said that he and his son agreed on 99% of the issues. Oh, I think I understand now, Ron also said this. "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." It seems like you fit that description well.



Someone who acted like you wanted wouldn't stand a chance at getting elected. Rand has the principles AND he has the pragmatism to get them across to people. Something we have needed for so very long.


For crying out loud, it should be crystal clear why Ron made that 99% comment. He's supporting his son AS A FATHER.

Of course he doesn't want a wedge between him and his own son...they're FAMILY.

That doesn't mean, at least to me, that Ron and Rand are literally only 1% apart on issues; nor does it make Ron a liar for making the comment. Since opinions aren't measured quantitatively anyway, it's pretty much meaningless.

Yeah, this.



Is Gary Johnson a radical?

No, of course not.

Exactly, I know how some of you operate. Sit on a forum and pick apart any alleged liberty candidate or politician as much as possible and do little if anything to help elect more. I'll take all the 80%+ that I can get cause only perfect comes in a genie bottle. Once again, the good is always the enemy of the perfect and that's what you're really all about. Rand's record is very strong and comparable to Ron's yet you lump him in with Bentivolio who isn't really all that bad lately.Rand isn't compromising, he's just pushing libertarian issues in a way that you're not happy with so it's time to burn him at the stake. That's how far out some of you are but you seem to be happy so I'm happy for you.

The thing is that not every vote is equally important and not everything should be weighted equally.


You see it as doing nothing because you only see the political process as the one and only way to accomplish the goal. I happen to believe that's the least effective way (especially since the electorate is woefully uneducated). If I were interested in pursuing the political process, I might be willing to accept 80%....but 80% free isn't really free, is it?

Its better than 0% free though.... I guess everyone has their sliding scale. There are some compromises I'll make and others I won't.

donnay
05-22-2013, 11:48 AM
Agreed, we the people need to be active in educating people, much of the time this happens in political races and through meetings whether they be Tea Party, republican clubs, C4L hangouts, etc.


It's as simple as Rand weighing in on an issue and and measuring how libertarian he can speak on it to not put off his intended audience, that's being a salesman. Also, there's the case of media demagoguery involved and they'd pick a Libertarian candidate clean if they ever felt threatened by them. In the mean time, Rand has used parliamentary tactics to strip certain bills of their anti-liberty measures and outright stopped entire pieces of legislation. I'd say as we elect more allies for him and Amash/Massie, we'll see the incremental tyranny stopped and reversed. I'd want to be a part of that.

I commend you for your continual effort to try and make radical change. I truly hope you are right and I am terribly wrong, but IMHO, this country is too far gone to get the change that will stop the legislative tyranny and the Police State.

The people (not elected officials) hold the unbridle power--but they have to understand how it works.

TheGrinch
05-22-2013, 12:08 PM
I commend you for your continual effort to try and make radical change. I truly hope you are right and I am terribly wrong, but IMHO, this country is too far gone to get the change that will stop the legislative tyranny and the Police State.

The people (not elected officials) hold the unbridle power--but they have to understand how it works.

And people are starting to realize this, through things like jury nullification, nullification of unjust federal gun bans, all as the emperor's clothes are being stripped off daily. We need not give up on education and action over a guy who doesn't require much of our time or money for over 2 years from now. However, people can and are being damaging to those future efforts before they even happen.

You don't support Rand, and think there are better things to focus on. Cool, let us know how we can help, but it serves no purpose to disavow those who are world's better than the politicians who are doing the real damage to this country. What does it matter if you don't think his methods will work? That doesn't mean you're obligated to stop him from trying. We each have our own path.

And yes, Rand is just one man, and his supporters don't act like he's the only answer anymore than we thought Ron was. This is and will always be an uphill battle, so we need to work together and support each other, not eat our own over minor disagreements.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-22-2013, 12:10 PM
I voted no because it's the elite that are currently in charge that are radical.

July
05-22-2013, 12:30 PM
I voted no because it's the elite that are currently in charge that are radical.

I agree with that.

bunklocoempire
05-22-2013, 12:41 PM
Is Rand Paul A Radical?

Well, has Rand been embraced and 100% approved by the machine, 90% or 50%? Is there evidence the machine uses Rand when the machine sees fit and then quickly looks to some other that suits the machine's purpose?

Does the machine focus on Rand's liberty message that unites D's and R's or does the machine fixate on the part of Rand's message that typically divides and mongers fear in this machine controlled environment?

IMO the machine hasn't necessarily passed over Fredo to give control of operations to Michael -but rather the machine has continued to prop up the weak and stupid, and for me settles the question.

http://s6.postimg.org/83bqj7p4h/fredo.jpg

NOVALibertarian
05-22-2013, 12:59 PM
I can't support Rand until he introduces a law that would outlaw government. Until he does that, I just don't think we can trust him.

Christian Liberty
05-22-2013, 04:04 PM
That would mean you don't trust RON either...

That said, Rand is an establishment thug. He just voted to attack Iran if they try to build a nuke...

cero
05-22-2013, 06:07 PM
what does op mean by radical ?

enoch150
05-22-2013, 08:15 PM
what does op mean by radical ?

Radical means he completely supports the nonaggression principle.

Rand is not a radical. He's not going to get the ball in the end zone.

But people like Rand, Ted Cruz, Gary Johnson (if he runs for something to which he can get elected) are our best opportunity right now to move the ball down the field for a while.

NationalAnarchist
05-23-2013, 09:04 AM
With his rhetoric, or his actions?

Actions and Rhetoric


You don't even know what that means, clearly. Here, read this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html).

I do and I will be returning the neg rep soon enough.

Fredom101
05-23-2013, 12:02 PM
Not even close...the closer we get to 2016 the more neo conish he becomes IMO

True. He's voted for war twice now? This is insane. Ron says sanctions are an act of war and Rand votes for it. Yes he's "better than most" in politics, but that's like saying Obama is better than Stalin, so we should be happy.

Fredom101
05-23-2013, 12:03 PM
I can't support Rand until he introduces a law that would outlaw government. Until he does that, I just don't think we can trust him.

I may even come out and vote for that!

compromise
05-23-2013, 12:15 PM
Radical means he completely supports the nonaggression principle.

Rand is not a radical. He's not going to get the ball in the end zone.

But people like Rand, Ted Cruz, Gary Johnson (if he runs for something to which he can get elected) are our best opportunity right now to move the ball down the field for a while.
Gary Johnson is not going to run for anything. He likes to whine about not being part of the national debate all day and the lack of "socially liberal" libertarians, yet turns down every opportunity he gets to re-enter the national debate (Senate run). The guy's a moron.