Althouse: "Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian."

April 7, 2015

"Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian."

"Take it from Rand Paul: 'I’m not a libertarian.'"

AND: "GOP Hawks Set to Ruin Rand Paul's Big Day."

14 comments:

rhhardin said...: It's the true libertarian fallacy.

You can also be libertarian and figure out what things government does better than the market.

The usual market failures come from free riders and interest groups screwing somebody.

The libertarian idea is that government action should leave nobody worse off. Hence just compensation for takings, compensation taking into account the benefit received by whatever it is, say a road.

Just compensation would take away the power of interest groups. The proposed screwing action would cost too much.; 4/7/15, 9:03 AM
Wince said...: His father, Ron Paul is a “libertarian cult figure” who had tremendous appeal to young Republicans.

Really? Didn't Ron Paul fill a void between the two major parties for disaffected lefties and righties?; 4/7/15, 9:21 AM
damikesc said...: No "pure" system works.

I think a more Libertarian streak would benefit America immensely given our ridiculous regulatory state.

But 100% Libertarianism would be as disastrous as 100% economic and social conservatism or the asinine Progressivism we've had for decades.; 4/7/15, 9:32 AM
Thorley Winston said...: Really? Didn't Ron Paul fill a void between the two major parties for disaffected lefties and righties?

I think the “void” that Ron Paul filled was the one that was left by Jesse Ventura which was left by Ross Perot which was left by Pat Buchanan, etc. There’s a certain segment of the electorate that gravitates to whoever throws out a few colorful one-liners usually of the “pox on both their houses variety” and connects with their feelings of anxiousness that doesn’t seem to be addressed by the major candidates. This segment of the population is more typically (but by no means exclusively) younger white males and I think it’s in large part because they’re not seen as swing voters and aren't as actively courted as women and Latino voters are which can feed into quite justified feelings that their concerns are being ignored. So when someone comes along that seems like a breath of fresh air, you can't blame people for being interested.; 4/7/15, 9:57 AM
Simon said...: Rand Paul is a libertarian. If he denies it, he's either a liar (which should disqualify him from running) or he doesn't know himself (which isn't exactly a letter of commendation, either).; 4/7/15, 10:15 AM
Writ Small said...: If Rand Paul is a libertarian who supports a strong military that is so powerful it gets little used, I could find a way to support the guy.

My concern is that all of those policy reversals smell of pandering. I really don't know if the guy is a clever true-believer, a complete phony, or a person who has legitimately undergone extremely convenient policy conversions.; 4/7/15, 10:15 AM
Thorley Winston said...: It's the true libertarian fallacy.

The one thing that I’ve noticed about the Paul supporters is that temperamentally they seem to have more in common with Progressives both in the persistent instance that they’re being hated or persecuted whenever they don’t get their way and the ongoing search for heretics i.e. the “establishment” which seems to be anybody who doesn’t meet their standard of ideological purity. I’ve considered myself a small “l” libertarian since the 90s and this seems to be pretty unique thing to Ron Paul supporters as the goal was to get people in the door, make them want to stay and try to work on getting them to adopt more and more libertarian positions gradually.; 4/7/15, 10:46 AM
Thorley Winston said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/7/15, 11:00 AM
Thorley Winston said...: Rand Paul is a libertarian. If he denies it, he's either a liar (which should disqualify him from running) or he doesn't know himself (which isn't exactly a letter of commendation, either).

The quote in question from the Reason article was:

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

I think when author reporting him saying “I’m not a libertarian” (small “l”) when what he actually said was probably ““I’m not a Libertarian” (big “L”) which is probably what lead to the confusion. The next two sentences are entirely consistent with someone who considers themselves to a “libertarian” (having a libertarian political philosophy) versus a “Libertarian” (being a member of the Libertarian Party).; 4/7/15, 11:04 AM
Franklin said...: Libertarianism requires a government strong enough to protect private property rights and a justice and court system robust enough for the redress of grievances.

Why do Progressives/Fascists constantly try to paint libertarians/conservatives as anarchists?!; 4/7/15, 1:35 PM
Bilwick said...: Remember the old joke, "Is it good for the Jews?" Because I'm one of those weirdoes who think our lives and property belong to ourselves, and not to the Hive I have the same tunnel-vision, only with me it's "Is it good for liberty?" Or, if evaluating a candidate, "Is he/she good for liberty?"

And given the dismal choices those of us who actually value liberty get to choose from in presidential elections, that question usually comes down to, "Is he better for liberty than the other guy?" Given that the Democrats will almost certainly run some total "liberal" jackass for president (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-f*cker"), it's hard to imagine a President Rand Paul--whether or not he's a "true" libertarian--NOT being better for liberty than a Hildabeast or a Fauxcahontas.; 4/7/15, 3:22 PM
The Godfather said...: I'm a libertarian-ish conservative, and in other times a Rand Paul would appeal to me. But by 2016 we will have had 8 years in which the power of our international enemies has increased exponentially while we've been led by a president who surrenders without even being asked. We'll really need a president who can say:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

I don't think Rand can say that and be credible. Most other potential Republican candidates could.

No likely potential Democratic candidate could say it (except Joe Biden, but he'd be gigged because he'd claim they were his own words).; 4/7/15, 3:30 PM
Thorley Winston said...: I agree with The Godfather and I’d just add that for me it’s largely the lack of executive experience that concerns me about Rand Paul or Ted Cruz (with Clinton and Warren it’s also that I find that I think their policies are bad and I find each to be without any integrity). The presidency is one of the most challenging jobs in the world and there’s going to be a learning curve and I think having a new President with experience running a complex organization like a State, major city or large business would help shorten that learning curve and also make them more successful in the long run.

Having said that, if Paul or Cruz win the primary, I have no reservations about voting for either in the general election and would do so enthusiastically if Clinton or Warren were the other party’s nominee.; 4/7/15, 4:30 PM
Michael K said...: "He was the architect of the 2004 “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” campaign that attacked John Kerry’s national-security record and credentials."

Actually, the "architect" was the veterans who knew Kerry and what a phony he is. They considered going after him when he ran for the Senate in Massachusetts but decided nobody in Massachusetts cared about phonies.

Rand Paul lost me when he went after Cheney using the DNC talking point (and lie) that Cheney pushed Bush to invade Iraq because of his Halliburton stock (which he had sold at a loss.); 4/7/15, 6:08 PM