Rand Paul Libertarianish?

[tennman]

On the Libertarian Board Google+ page (https://plus.google.com/+Libertarianboard/posts), a commenter was talking about Rand not being the pure blood libertarian that his dad is/was. He was complaining about that and I had something to say in response that I think sums thinks up pretty well and is reasonable. Feel free to use it if you're in conversation with other libertarians. I'm not saying it's the be all and end all, but I think it's pretty solid.

Rand is an incrementalist, meaning that he realizes we can't do this all at once. Ron's campaigns should've showed/taught us that. The reason is because we can't go at it alone. Democrats sure as hell don't want the government any smaller or less powerful, but that idea is warmly received, generally speaking, among many Republicans. Not all of course, as there are a lot of RINO's out there. But the point is that people make changes in steps usually rather than all at once.

Rand can be a stepping stone, albeit a big step, toward a much more constitutional form of government and less spying, taxing, and abusing of power. As people start liking that and Republicans see that he's not just talk as a lot of the others have been, he can bring about more change. And that would pave the way for the next candidate to have a platform that has even more of the issues important to libertarians.

Change is accepted slowly. We've got to be mature and strategic about this. We can actually have someone who is one of us in power and able to influence or we can just sit on the sidelines and continue to have our liberty raped.

As I see it, libertarians can work within the Republican party to teach and change thought. The goal is liberty. We can't get it all in one grab as much as I wish we could. Rand has to have broader numbers of support to win. It's just that simple. I think he's going to move fast, but in order to get there, he's got to work in increments with select issues that can find support within the GOP and independents. Do you see my point?

[JohnGalt1225]

"The people" lack vision, want everything at once, and have no patience. This has always been the case. This why the masses don't create change very often, but "irate minorities" do. I'll admit to being put off by some of Rand's words and actions in the past but then I was able to see the forest through the trees.

I don't even like to call myself a libertarian because unfortunately that noble ideology has been coopted by people like Glenn Beck or trendy liberals who care about legalizing pot, opening the borders, and gay marriage above everything else. Don't get me wrong, I want the government out of marriage and the drug "war" ended but these days anyone who wants to legalize pot or believes in "gay rights" runs around calling themselves libertarians. I prefer to "Constitutional Conservative" or even "paleoconservative" to libertarian.

[presence]

I see your point.

I liken it to the anti-abortion movements best path... if we can convince the masses that skull crushing vacuum sucking is the wrong way to deal with an unwanted 7lb or 8lb fetus... maybe we can get 'em on 6lb'ers as well.

[tennman]

I see your point.

I liken it to the anti-abortion movements best path... if we can convince the masses that skull crushing vacuum sucking is the wrong way to deal with an unwanted 7lb or 8lb fetus... maybe we can get 'em on 6lb'ers as well.

Exactly! You've got to start somewhere!

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, that's nicely put OP.

I do think that most of the self-ascribed libertarians who still don't support Rand are beyond help, mind you, but I suppose it never hurts to give it another try.

[emazur]

Yes, that's nicely put OP.

I do think that most of the self-ascribed libertarians who still don't support Rand are beyond help, mind you, but I suppose it never hurts to give it another try.

I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who have either zoned out of politics for a few years and/or haven't kept close watch on Rand yet - I'm not sold on him yet but open minded and doing more research to decide. Looking at his issues page on the campaign site gives general positions but not much in the way of plans to achieve them (which I'm sure is fairly typical of most candidates) - that matters too

[tennman]

I wanted to add this video to this thread of Judge Napolitano explaining that Rand can't snap his fingers and make the country libertarian and that NO ONE CAN as Ron's campaigns demonstrated:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPir7zNmclM

[heavenlyboy34]

Rothbard on growing from "Lone Nut" to "school of thought" to "movement", etc:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxYC4H0VWo&spfreload=10

[Ronin Truth]

I'd SWAG GOP conservative Ron Paulish.

[LawnWake]

It's really weird to be criticizing one of the top 5 most libertarian members of congress for not being "libertarian enough", just because he's the son of Ron Paul. Why not criticize everyone else running for not being nearly as libertarian as Rand Paul instead?

[Ronin Truth]

It's really weird to be criticizing one of the top 5 most libertarian members of congress for not being "libertarian enough", just because he's the son of Ron Paul. Why not criticize everyone else running for not being nearly as libertarian as Rand Paul instead?

Get each of their individual opinions on the NAP, and you will have the correct answer.

[dude58677]

I learned this the hard way on the game "Masters of the World". Rand Paul can pardon people issue executive orders refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws but the next President can enforce unconstitutional federal laws because the infringements are still on the books. You would have to have a Congress repealing the laws or more State and jury nullification.

The game "Masters of the World" allows you to be President of any of the 180 countries with up to date information, do 1,000 different actions of either reform or corruption. Anything you ask what can be done on that game and I will tell you you can.

[r3volution 3.0]

Rothbard on growing from "Lone Nut" to "school of thought" to "movement", etc:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWxYC4H0VWo&spfreload=10

Excellent video, I'd never seen it before.

I especially recommend the section from about 45:00-50:00, in which Murray speaks about the alternatives to electoral politics.

Spoiler Alert:

....he thinks there are none.

[heavenlyboy34]

Excellent video, I'd never seen it before.

I especially recommend the section from about 45:00-50:00, in which Murray speaks about the alternatives to electoral politics.

Spoiler Alert:

....he thinks there are none.
I disagree with him on that. If he were resurrected now in the digital age, he would have access to more info and change his mind. Plus, he's talking about creating a whole new party (the LP), not playing regime political games.

[r3volution 3.0]

I disagree with him on that. If he were resurrected now in the digital age, he would have access to more info and change his mind.

Sure he would...


Plus, he's talking about creating a whole new party (the LP), not playing regime political games.

...which he eventually abandoned, before pioneering the movement into the GOP, of which Ron Paul was the eventual fruit.

Of course, the whole time Rothbard was involved with the LP, he was simultaneously "playing regime political games," as you call it - i.e. working in various ways within the Democratic and/or Republican parties. He had sort of an "all of the above" strategy. But, anyway, the point is that he thought that, ultimately, you had to translate the growth of the movement into electoral victories or it was all for nought.

[Krugminator2]

I disagree with him on that. If he were resurrected now in the digital age, he would have access to more info and change his mind. Plus, he's talking about creating a whole new party (the LP), not playing regime political games.

He endorsed George HW Bush. He was fine playing political games.

"Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice--George Bush."
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush

[r3volution 3.0]

He endorsed George HW Bush. He was fine playing political games.

"Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice--George Bush."

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-30/local/me-4460_1_george-bush

...and Lyndon Johnson.

He was more worried about Goldwater's foreign policy than Johnson's domestic policy.

I think that was an error myself, but that's hindsight, and beside the point anyway.

[Occam's Banana]

It's really weird to be criticizing one of the top 5 most libertarian members of congress for not being "libertarian enough" [...] Why not criticize everyone else running for not being nearly as libertarian as Rand Paul instead?

Why not do both? Politicians should always have their toes held to the fire. Always. Even Ron Paul ...

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

He's got the pander to the far right and even the left if he wants any kind of traction. Libertarians are still a small minority in the voting pool.

[LawnWake]

Why not do both? Politicians should always have their toes held to the fire. Always. Even Ron Paul ...

Sure they do. I've had enough neg reps for calling out both Rand and his dad. But specifically singling out Rand Paul for not being libertarian enough, in a race or even a congress where hardly anyone is libertarian, isn't the most rational thing to do.

[teaparty]

states rights

[teaparty]

rand paul is a true conservative, just like ted cruz and the others.

[r3volution 3.0]

rand paul is a true conservative, just like ted cruz and the others.

Ted Cruz is full of shit my boy.

But to each his own..

He talks a decent game, but he shouldn't be trusted.

Rand Paul is bone fide.

[tennman]

I also said this today in response to a self-proclaimed libertarian who was slamming Rand:

Rand is not a perfect candidate and it's unlikely we would all agree on what the perfect candidate is. But Rand would be a super-massive improvement toward liberty and he actually has a shot at winning. You are not perfect, neither am I and neither is Rand. But he is at least an ally. He supports most of the same things hardcore, pure libertarians do. He has made some compromises because he can't change every mind in the snap of a finger and neither can we. But gee golly, wouldn't it be nice to actually make some meaningful, positive changes instead of just complaining that Rand isn't perfect or isn't his father? Yes, it would be.