90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Rand Paul And More On Libertarianism

With John Harwood in for Tom Ashbrook.

Rand Paul and others on Libertarianism and the future of the Republican Party.

Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky speaks at a fundraiser for state Sen. Jack Johnson in Franklin, Tenn., on Sunday, July 28, 2013. (AP)

Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky speaks at a fundraiser for state Sen. Jack Johnson in Franklin, Tenn., on Sunday, July 28, 2013. (AP)

The Republican Party needs a new formula for winning national elections, and Libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul think they have it: a much smaller government, a much less aggressive foreign policy, and a much more tolerant social policy. But they’ve tried before and failed – for decades. Are there enough of them NOW to remake the GOP?

This hour, On Point: We’ll talk to Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who’s trying to finish the work his father started.

Guests

Senator Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, elected in 2010. Author of “Government Bullies: How Everyday Americans are Being Harassed, Abused, And Imprisoned by the Feds.” (@senrandpaul)

David Boaz, leading libertarian thinker and executive vice president at the Cato Institute. Co-Author (with David Kirby and Emily Ekins) of: “The Libertarian Vote: Swing Voters, Tea Parties, and the Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Center.” (@david_boaz)

Molly Ball, staff writer covering national politics for The Atlantic. (@mollyesque)

From the Reading List

Politico: Rand Paul: ‘Old guard’ losing elections – ”Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he agrees with those that say there is pushback from the Republican establishment when the party faces heat from factions such as the libertarian wing. Newt Gingrich said Thursday that he thinks the establishment is growing ‘more hysterical’ as Paul and fellow Republican Sen. Ted Cruz rise in prominence. Paul said Friday on ‘The Laura Ingraham Show’ that he thinks the establishment needs to welcome new ideas.”

Washington Post: Libertarians flex their muscle in the GOP – ”Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.”

Pew Research Center: Whither the GOP? Republicans Want Change, But Split over Party’s Direction — “Coming off of two consecutive presidential election defeats, most Republican voters believe that their party must address major problems to be more competitive in the future. And roughly six-in-ten say improved messaging alone will not be enough – the GOP also needs to reconsider some of its positions.”

 

You can listen to just our interview with Senator Rand Paul, here.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • fun bobby

    for too long we have had two parties. neither of which give a darn about liberty

    • Jon

      because liberty is all about desire. nobody cares the desire of the other side.

      • fun bobby

        I think liberty is anathema to power and that’s what they seek, they seek to control others and you cant do so if the others are free

        • Jon

          no, the desire to seek power of controlling others is assume “I’m the chosen one”

          • fun bobby

            that’s incoherent

    • 65noname

      and with the advent of the libertarian party we’ll have three

      • fun bobby

        its been around for a while. still not invited to debates or given equal time on media

        • 65noname

          I meant three parties that don’t “give a darn about liberty”

          • fun bobby

            based on rand? why are you saying that?

  • Mike_Card

    He has nothing to say that I am interested in hearing. No wonder he comes from the same spawn as Mitch Muffmouf.

    • Don_B1

      When Rand Paul made his entry into Kentucky politics, Senator Mitch McConnell initially supported his more mainstream opponent. But after Rand Paul steamrolled his way to victory, Senator McConnell read the tea leaves and moved to reconcile with Senator Paul in an effort to forestall being primaried in his 2014 reelection campaign.

      As Senator McConnell has had better success in herding the bunch of cats the Senators seem to emulate than previous Minority Leaders, his loss in the next election might have interesting consequences, either positive or negative, for the Republicans and the country.

    • middleclassjoe

      Correctamundo: Neither one of them is a native of Kentucky.

  • jefe68

    Libertarians seem to me to live in a fantasy world.

    As Governor Christie pointed out to Rand Paul that his state, Kentucky, receives $1.51 for very $1 in taxes they pay to the Federal government while New Jersey receives $0.61 for every dollar.

    This ranks Kentucky 9th out of 50 and New Jersey 50 out of 50.

    Yeah, that’s right Rand Paul, your a hypocrite and are feeding off the very Federal government you so despise.

    As I wrote, libertarians live in a fantasy world of extremism.

    • Nathaniel Hamrick

      Kentucky elects the GOP, not Libertarians.
      Your numbers and attacking Libertarians is a strawman.

      • Shark2007

        So are you saying that Senator Ayn Rand Paul is not a libertarian, but merely a pretender? What about Congressman Ryan, is he a pretender too? In your view, who are the “libertarian” candidates? Did you see the selected Ayn quotes in the recent New Yorker? You consider Ayn a serious student of philosophy?

        • thequietkid10

          The fact that you are comparing Paul Ryan to Rand Paul shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Don_B1

            You have a point in that Representative Paul Ryan is a con man more than a libertarian, but his “starve the beast” budget is one that a significant number of House Republicans could vote for at the abstract top level but cannot support when it comes to the details; see the last two bills on Transportation and the attempt to double the previous cut in food stamps.

            It would seem to fit right in with Senator Paul’s libertarian ideology.

          • 2Gary2

            eddie munster is a d-bag

          • Shark2007

            You didn’t address the question. Did you see the reports that Paul Ryan attended confabs of Ayn Rand followers and was a speaker at same? Do you think that is consistent with his claim o be a devote Catholic?

          • thequietkid10

            I talk with Ron Paul fans, libertarians, objectivist, and anarcho-capitalist on a regular basis, Paul Ryan is not highly regarded at all by that group, despite what CNN might tell you. There are a few others like Mike Lee and Ted Cruz who are well liked, but not Paul Ryan (and not Bachmann either). Just because you have a reputation as a budget hawk in Washington, doesn’t make you cool in that circle.

            Here, go to this website, ask them what they think of Paul Ryan

            http://www.ronpaulforums.com

          • Shark2007

            The more they fight among themselves as to who is the most pure, the better. Bachmann confuses her nightmares with reality. But it is clear that Paul Ryan considered himself a follower of Ayn Rand, so the question remains do you or any of the others writing here see a conflict between that and his claim o be a devout Catholic? I do believe the Catholic Bishops criticized his agenda or the poor. Did you notice?

          • thequietkid10

            I answered your original question about Paul Ryan’s political affiliation, I didn’t read the recent New Yorker, and I could care less about Paul Ryan, because I am neither an objectionist, a catholic (or religious for that matter), or a Paul Ryan fan. What Paul Ryan has to do with any of this is beyond me.

            And the tired old meme of “if you are not in favor of government redistribution, then you are morally inferior” is liberal trash . The government shouldn’t be doing the Church’s moral work for them,. Government programs are a great way for people to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything or spending their own money.

      • jefe68

        How so,he represents Kentucky as a Republican who also claims to be a Libertarian.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          “Their huge dislike for government kind of runs counter to the idea of being in it.”

          If Libertarians weren’t today’s subject, couldn’t this pull be applied to the modern GOP?

          • jefe68

            Correct. I think it’s the influence of Libertarians and extremist conservatives that have steered the GOP into the party we now see.

    • Jon

      to be exact, it’s more like the jungle world.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Senator Paul: It appears that you wish for the dismantling of society by monetizing and privatizing the services and infrastructure of modern civilization. The emerging corporatocracy of today may be more efficient than the system that emerged after the fall of Rome. It does however represent “a state of nature” that is every bit as feudal. Why is this better for all of America and the world than what we have had?

  • AC

    Like most designs, it seems like libertarianism looks good on paper, but it’s impractical & does not work in real space that is civilized society.

    • 1Brett1

      It also makes for great populist speeches to an audience of those who would be frustrated by their perceptions of how government affects their lives, freedoms, etc. Paul’s rise to political power is one of a direct result borne out of the Tea Party movement. It seems libertarianism is replete with a lot of platitudes and generalizations.

    • HonestDebate1

      That is exactly my view AC. I love Libertarians… on paper.

      • 1Brett1

        But, you feel they are “impractical…in civilized society”? Does that extend to Republicans? (It is a good bet it extends to Democrats, AKA, the “Democrat Party.”)

        • HonestDebate1

          Yes.

          • 1Brett1

            What is practical to you, then?

          • HonestDebate1

            All of the parties appeal to me on some level, all are impractical on some level. I am not associated with any party.

            But it’s not about me.

          • 1Brett1

            Your opinions are about you, which were the questions I was asking. Again, your opinions are just that; there is no essential truth of which you speak, irrespective of what you express as truth and irrespective of what you condemn as a perspective that you have opiniolns…but could you be a little more bland and banal in your replies; you sound like a libertarian full of non-committal platitudes.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are not interested in my opinions, quit the ruse. And who says I think I have a monopoly on the truth? My comment had nothing to do with what is or isn’t true.

          • 1Brett1

            Aww, you’re just yellow…Why are you so afraid to express your views on libertarianism and conservatism?

          • HonestDebate1

            I did but you wanted to talk about me and I didn’t take the bait.

          • 65noname

            democracy, equality, freedom and justice

          • 1Brett1

            What? You left out “liberty”!!

          • 65noname

            I’m assuming that you’re joking but isn’t “liberty” “democracy, equality, freedom and justice”? Of course, randians would leave out equality and justice.

          • 1Brett1

            Isn’t “freedom” just another word for “nothing left to lose”?

    • Shag_Wevera

      I don’t even think it looks good on paper.

      • John Cedar

        Neither do I . I would think even a young child would dismiss it after seeing it on paper.
        LIBERALISM, looks good on paper.

        • HonestDebate1

          Communism looks awesome on paper.

    • Robert Eckerson

      Look at Gary Johnson’s record as governor of NM for eight years.

  • 1Brett1

    Paul is a junior, freshman senator (for the last two years)…he’s also a practicing physician (as an ophthalmologist). He has specialized in treating glaucoma. He has also started a chapter of the Lions Club, an eye clinic for those who can not afford to pay, which would ostensibly be a libertarian approach to health care.

    His foray onto the national political stage began as he gave speeches on behalf of his campaigning father (president). He ran for senator from Kentucky in 2010, after the seat was being vacated by a retiring senator…I mention this to illustrate that Paul is new to the process. He has risen to power as a Tea Party success story; he was elected as one of their candidates.

    He serves on a number of committees, including Health, Energy, and Education. He also founded the Senate Tea Party Caucus (along with Jim DeMint). He has proposed gutting the Dept. of Education, as well as eliminating the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, and the Dept. of Energy. He has also voted against bills that prevented a government shutdown. Of course, we are all familiar with his filibuster uses on the Senate floor.

    He is pro life, believing life begins at CONCEPTION. He has also described himself as a “constitutional conservative” and a “libertarian.”

    I mention all of these because he appears to be more of a grandstander whose activity, rather than accomplish the passage of legislation as part of being in the Senate, is more along the lines of someone who works off of sensational issues designed to keep himself in the limelight. I say this because he exemplifies the kind of politician who is more invested in the stage of Congress rather than the work of Congress.

  • 1Brett1

    As Paul being an ophthalmologist who has specialized in the treatment of glaucoma, it would be interesting (and even perhaps amusing) to hear what his views are on the medical use of cannabis regarding such conditions as glaucoma, as well as a treatment for nausea and loss of appetite during chemotherapy for cancer…I would think a libertarian would applaud such approaches.

  • HonestDebate1

    There is a lot being made about the split in the Republican Party between the Libertarian wing and the establishment wing but I think the Libertarians are fracturing the Democrats the same way. Ron Paul had a lot of Democrat support. There are even a few commenters here that are far left and supported Ron Paul. I’m not sure if Rand has the same appeal.

  • RolloMartins

    What are Sen. Paul’s vies on the gold standard? This has long put the wacko in the wacko fringe.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Libertarianism is conservatives version of anarchy. Police, Fire, and military to protect me and my stuff from the unwashed masses who have nothing. No more government than that.

  • Ray in VT

    Where does Senator Paul stand on the Civil Rights Act? Back in April, while speaking at Howard University, the Senator said “I’ve never wavered in my support for civil rights or the Civil Rights Act”, although he had previously made statements over a number of years voicing opposition to anti-discrimination laws.

    • 1Brett1

      His views seem to be that he doesn’t have a problem with discrimination against people of a particular group if one has a private organization, e.g., no blacks allowed at a private country club; no Latinos at a private restaurant, etc., is okay. If you own, say, a private IT firm, you should have the right not to hire a black person because you don’t want blacks at your business. He dances all around the issue (particularly since he received some political fallout for his initially expressed views) but that is what he means when he makes a distinction between a public and private institution.

      • thequietkid10

        There is a difference between saying one approves of something and someone believes it should be illegal. That is the crux of libertarianism.

        The problem with using government to advance the betterment of society is that everyone has a different idea of how to better society. I’m sure Haliburton thinks what they are doing is for the betterment of society, I’m sure Monsanto patient lawyers think they are working towards the betterment of society, I’m positive Pat Robertson thinks he’s working for the betterment of society. Doesn’t mean they should codify their values in Congress so that everyone else has to follow them.

        If you started a restaurant and didn’t allow blacks in it, I’d start a restaurant across the street and run your racist *** out of business. If you decided your IT company should not hire Latinos I’ll start my own IT company and take all your customers and employees.

        • 1Brett1

          I see…let the market decide what is discrimination and what is not; how original.

        • skrekk

          >>>If you started a restaurant and didn’t allow blacks in it, I’d start a restaurant across the street and run your racist *** out of business.

          Businesses in the south had over a hundred years to do that, but all that happened was racism became entrenched, and you got run out of town at sundown.

          It was precisely the public accommodation laws which the Pauls both oppose which forced a change. Sundown towns no longer exist, and blacks no longer need the Green Book to travel.

      • Ray in VT

        Such a position as you describe seems to be the sort of libertarian view, but I just don’t think that it works, and good luck bringing in minorities with a position like that.

    • John Cedar

      His daddy came to the conclusion that to backtrack and lie about what he really thinks, is the best answer. I don’t really care. A great case can be made against the act. But the nut job doesn’t fall far from the tree. A better question: is he a gold standard idiot, like his daddy?

      The sad thing is that he and his dad would both make a bazillion times better president than the current one…and twice as good as the one before that.

      • 1Brett1

        John, please quit beating around the bush and just come right out and tell us what you really think.

      • nj_v2

        Wow, a whole two times as good as Shrub. Now there’s some high aspirations!

    • thequietkid10

      To be honest, I’m entirely not sure. It’s tough because Paul isn’t a true libertarian, at least in the mold that his father is. It’s also tough because there are elements of the Civil Rights Act that most libertarians support

      • 1Brett1

        What is a true libertarian?

        • thequietkid10

          let me put it this way

          Libertarian criticisms of Rand Paul

          too wishy washy on the war of drugs

          too protective of Israel

          Voted for the farm bill (the corporate side)

          Less interested in making Social Security a voluntary system and more interested in means testings and reforming the age of retirement

          Has not taken a hard line stance against all non defensive wars,

          Now of course some of those ideas are not widely popular, but none the less they aren’t quite libertarian.

      • Ray in VT

        What seems a bit whacky to me about the stance that he voiced for some time seems, at least to me, the belief that “the market” (or however one might want to term it) will take care of problems, when it is pretty clear that that is not the case.

  • Shag_Wevera

    The question seems to be, what is government, and what should be it’s scope? I would say it is to protect freedom and the basic existence of it’s citizens.

    • dust truck

      define “freedom”

      • thequietkid10

        freedom from coercion

        • dust truck

          I know, I hate it when the government tries to coerce me from committing crimes! I should be allowed to do whatever I want.

          • thequietkid10

            Yeah let me rephrase that. Freedom from coercion so long as you don’t infringe on someone else’s life (or body), liberty or property.

      • Shag_Wevera

        It can mean whatever you want, once everyone has food, shelter, and medicine.

        • dust truck

          is “food, shelter, and medicine” freedom? What if that food or shelter was taken from someone else, depriving them of freedom?

          • Shag_Wevera

            What if money was taken from you to pay firemen who save me from my burning house?

      • Jon

        = liberty = human desire = animal desire

    • John Cedar

      I agree.
      Just wondering if your version of basic existence includes:
      Obama phones
      Air conditioning
      Heat set at 82 in the winter
      A separate bedroom for each child

      Food stamps with no purchase restrictions

      A right to a four year degree…

      • Shag_Wevera

        Food, shelter, medicine. Even if that means beans and rice, a cot, and basic medical.

  • Michiganjf

    Rand Paul is only a small part Libertarian, on his father’s side…

    The rest of Paul is PURE Rick Perry.

    Take it from a native Texan… no one needs another Rick Perry!

    • Shag_Wevera

      God Bless Texas! (not)

      • Ray in VT

        Gotta love a not joke.

    • thequietkid10

      Yeah, no, Senator Rick Perry won’t be spending all his time fighting against the NSA. Probably won’t be as anti “war on drugs” as Paul. (to the extent that Paul is anti war on drugs.

      • Michiganjf

        So you identified Paul’s little “Libertarian” side… well done!

    • AsianAmericanPatriot

      Rand Paul is not even close to Rick Perry, I am a Native Texan as well, I agree no one needs a Rick Perry. To equate the two is intellectually lazy. Rick is a panderer where Rand stands on principle. And Rick Perry doesn’t represent Libertarianism at all, and Rand has much more than you claim which shows your lack of knowledge of both men, their philosophy, and their history.

  • Shag_Wevera

    America to newborn: Welcome citizen! Our promise to you is food, shelter, and medicine as needed. Beyond that, you are free to make what you will of your life! Tally Ho!

  • Bluejay2fly

    Some people have called me a libertarian because my belief structure is currently outside the two party system. Just like H Ross Perot who was dead right about NAFTA but then wanted impose a 10 cents a gallon gas tax which increased every year for five years these candidates have some great ideas and equally terrible ideas. If I were paranoid I would believe that these guys are a plant by both parties in an attempt to discourage people from ever having any interest in politics. I follow the tea party and libertarians to search for an individual or movement that will transcend this morass we are in ,but every time one says something very innovative they come out with something so stupid you cannot support them. I think it is because politicians are paid lobbyists and they bind together so many different special interest groups that some of them are inherently in conflict with one another.

    • Don_B1

      That the implementation of NAFTA was imperfect is a given. Check out the discussion by Jared Bernstein on trade here:

      http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/yoyo-witt-globalization-and-a-heartfelt-tale-from-the-heartland/

      where it is important to note the quote from the study by Folbre:

      “Trade theory emphasizes that those who benefit from free trade should be able to compensate those who suffer, making everyone better off. What trade theory doesn’t explain is why the beneficiaries would offer such compensation unless they are forced to do so.”

      And clearly most trade agreements do not have enough representation for workers at the table. But libertarians don’t have any stronger desire to ensure workers do not suffer from “free trade” than the current politicians, with the exception of some (but from experience, not enough) Democrats.

  • AC

    Mexican drug lords are libertarians….

    • thequietkid10

      Mexican drug lords won’t exist if the sale of drugs was legal in the first place. Note how there are no violent drug lords who specialize in the production, sale, and distribution of tobacco and the last drug lord who specialized in production, sale, and distribution of alcohol hasn’t been relevant since well before the Civil Rights movement..

      • AC

        that is only partially true, alas…i hate to inform you of this, but many legal/slightly gray prescription and medical procedures are also offered (tho you must go there). & guess who holds interest?

      • jefe68

        They are gangsters. They would find something else to exploit. As the American gangsters did when prohibition ended.

        • Don_B1

          True, but they got their large organization and reputation for getting “rich” from the opportunities provided by the prohibition of something that was widely desired and thus had the ability to move into drugs, etc., which initially was not allowed (at least supposedly).

  • brettearle

    NPR and “On Point” often present many sides to an issue.

    That is certainly, as it should be.

    Unfortunately, in this case, we are giving a platform to a zealously ambitious [to be President] fanatic…..even if I agree with some of his points about privacy and civil liberties.

    But make no mistake, Paul is pretty much of an extremist.

    He’s bright enough to create the impression that he isn’t.

    • Bluejay2fly

      I would never worry about his kind gaining traction because as thequietkid10 said the base of the party are extreme Christians. They will always get murdered at the polls for being intolerant, douche bags who are an anathema to everything Christ represents. Those who are willing to overlook the social issues and have a basic understanding of economics 101 realize that Tea Party and Libertarian ideas on fiscal issue are delusional.

  • Jasoturner

    Well, a true libertarian would be a tough fit in the republican party. Republicans have employed social intolerance to create wedge issues for decades, and that is unlikely to stop. If the rubes stop hating on the Latinos and gays and atheists and Muslims and what not, they might figure out that the big con is underway and demand competent governance.

    Furthermore, republicans (and generally all politicians) get all soft and gooey whenever someone in a military uniform talks to them or requests money for fancy new toys, so a more restrained (and less costly) military is probably a pipe dream.

    “Smaller government” is like pixie dust. It sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? I suppose for a libertarian it might justify wiping out the various “safety nets” our government still provides, not to mention “burdensome” regulations. That, I suppose, the republicans could roll with.

    • thequietkid10

      Excellent, great job of summing up what libertarians face. I think the core Republican voter is still Evangelical Christian and still thinks the Iraq war was a good idea (LMAO).

      • Ray from Harlem

        Republican’s are NOT Evangelical Christians. They are not dedicated followers of Christ and should not be considered “evangelical” as many of them do not live, obey, and evagelize a Christian lifestyle.

        • Bluejay2fly

          It is their base why do you think the South is GOP. It sure as hell was not that way in the 1960′s

          • HonestDebate1

            Are there no Christians in the North?

          • Ray in VT

            Plenty of ‘em, just not so many of the evangelical sort that dominate the South. We’ve got a lot of Catholics (who are not considered to be Christians by some Evangelicals) and Episcopalians. There’s much less of a fundamentalist strain.

          • HonestDebate1

            I had one commenter swear a Harlem pastor in a non-denominational church was a Southern Baptist. I think it’s just silly, I don’t care what people find comfort in, even if it’s nothingness.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          The word “Christianist” is used by many left-wingers to describe those who don the cloak of Christianity for political purposes and really don’t follow through on the life.

          (Just thought you’d like to know the word exists.)

          • HonestDebate1

            Bill Clinton is an evangelical Christian.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Yeah, so?

            I mean, so what? There’s no end to genuinely Christian Democrats.

            Except when the media starts talking about “values”.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you, this thread was beginning to give the impression only Republicans are Christians.

        • HonestDebate1

          Anthony Weiner is a sexual predator but people expect that sort of thing from Democrats so he’s not a hypocrite. Cool.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Hey, Diaper David Vitter and Mark Appalachian Trail Sanford on line one.

            And they’re still telling people what to do in their bedrooms and doctors’ offices.

          • HonestDebate1

            “And they’re still telling people what to do in their bedrooms and doctors’ offices.”

            That’s funny coming from the party of Obamacare.

          • Ray in VT

            Are there any sexual acts or medical procedures that the Democrats are either trying to criminalize, ban or regulate out of existence a la The Cucc. in Virginia regarding “unnatural” sexual acts or abortion just about everywhere where the GOP has a majority?

          • HonestDebate1

            The extreme position to me is permitting a 14 year old girl to get a tax-payer funded abortion in the final month of gestation without parental consent. That’s what democrats stand for.

            Dollars to donuts more democrats (as evidenced by legislative votes) support the above than do Republicans support what you have described.

          • Ray in VT

            I, and most other liberals and or Democrats, wouldn’t be for that either except for in extremely exceptional circumstances, but that certainly doesn’t explain the GOP mandating unnecessary probes, unneeded regulations on facilities and increasingly restrictive time period restrictions. That is what the GOP has been pushing for hard all across the country wherever they can. That, and a constitutional amendment banning abortion, is what they are all about.

          • Don_B1

            If that happens, and that is a BIG “IF,” it is because the 14-year-old did not have earlier access to health care and there is a severe medical problem with the gestation. I would be surprised if there were more than you could count on one hand in a year.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Cram the government ordered wand up your ass.

          • Don_B1

            If the doctor is unaffordable it does not matter what the doctor and patient can do.

            But the Republicans are the ones making the biggest effects on doctor patient relations if the patient is a woman, right up to demanding that the doctor lie to the patient.

          • Ray from Harlem

            Thankfully, Anthony Weiner is Jewish, not Evangelical.

          • Don_B1

            Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego is much worse, since he just does things to women, whereas, as stupid and vile as it is, it seems the women that participate in Weiner’s e-mail exchanges actually participate to some extent.

    • geraldfnord

      Sorry for redundancy with my too-prolix post above…but I can’t shake the feeling that the closest we’d actually come to Libertopia is a world in which the State does most-to-more of what it does for the powerful now and actively makes things worse for the poor, e.g. by allowing the wealthy’s private security forces to claim self-defence for _any_ attack on a Moocher.

  • creaker

    Beware labels like “libertarian” – too often people adopt a label, and then twist the meaning to suit their own agendas.

    Libertarianism is a pretty specific platform – if Rand Paul adopts libertarianism, except for x, or including y, it might be something similar to libertarianism, but it’s not “Libertarianism”.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    Let them go farther right and extreme. Never stand in the way of your enemy when they are destroying themselves.

    • AC

      lol

    • Bluejay2fly

      Unfortunately, they are dragging the left with it. Obama is basically a moderate Republican.

      • creaker

        So true – if you look at his actions and ignore the speeches I’d place Obama a bit to the right of Bush.

  • creaker

    Unless the Republican party is planning to turn away social conservatives, the idea of the party adopting libertarianism is all smoke and mirrors.

    Libertarianism is pretty much the opposite of social conservatism.

  • AC

    …..but Ayn Rand was a welfare recipient? or she collected $11k a month in SS or something, no?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Hey, it doesn’t matter what she did. Her beliefs and writings were more important.

      • Bluejay2fly

        Objectivism is crap, only selfish idiots follow that ideology.

        • Ray in VT

          I always thought that this quote was pretty funny:

          “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s
          life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish
          fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable
          heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood,
          unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves
          orcs”.

          • AC

            that’s about the age i read Atlas Shrugged, and I was a huge fan of hers. fortunately, i am more analytical than fanciful, so i grew up…

          • Ray in VT

            I remember that my college roommate read it because it was one of those books that one is supposed to read, and he did not enjoy it. I’m not sure if it was the writing or the philosophy, although he, as a fairly devout Catholic, may have disliked some of the very unkind things that she said about Christianity.

          • geraldfnord

            The joke is that this lover of absolute property rights took so many ideas from Nietzsche that it’s a wonder that his financial heirs didn’t sue her or call her a Jude-Bolschewik…now if she’d been a Galambosian!…

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          I will say that the phrase “enlightened self interest” is an overused term lately, the same way that “personal responsibility” has lost most all meaning.

    • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      …and I’ll bet it didn’t come close to what she paid into that program. I am in favor of ending government transfer programs, but I would be perfectly justified in extracting as much as I could from the government as I know it wouldn’t come close to what they’ve taken from me already.

      • AC

        that is the point of it being there – when you’re sick, which she had lung cancer and would have been wiped out, she took SS & medicare. maybe she wouldn’t have even taken it if it wasn’t worry about losing her fortune to med bills.
        however, that you would belittle paying into it for someone else who may be in that situation is childish – that is the point & function of such funds. so we don’t walk around like animals expecting the injured to go off into the woods and off themselves….

        • 1Brett1

          AND, she was sick by her very own hand, through a lifetime of chain smoking! …I don’t judge her chain smoking, but she sure would have been judgmental if she had observed some need of governmental assistance another person had based on some self-inflicted disease.

          Not only was she a third-rate novelist who wrote what has amounted to YA novels, she was a junkyard philosopher and cult leader. Imagine the psychologist and his lecturer/writer wife who built their entire careers on her ideas (Nathaniel and Barbara Branden)!

          Sorry, my last paragraph is completely gratuitous, but I can’t stand Ayn Rand.

          • Don_B1

            Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a member of her inner circle and follows her philosophy to this day.

          • geraldfnord

            They are not Y.A. novels so much as romance novels…where else do women so love being ravished-shading-into-rape?

        • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

          Sorry, I belittled what?

          What I said was I am in favor of ending government transfer programs. I didn’t say I am in favor of people dying in the woods or starving in the streets. I simply think there are better ways to achieve the goal of a safety net than taxing people at the point of a gun, giving the tax money to Congress to play with (corporate welfare, the military/industrial/government complex, pork barrel spending, business-killing red tape, etc.), and then praying there is enough future tax revenue to cover the obligations when those same people reach the age of retirement.

          By GAAP metrics, this government is insolvent and will never be able to honestly satisfy the net present value of its obligations, which is approximately $70 trillion dollars. The government will devalue the dollar and reduce benefits instead, both dishonest ways to satisfy those obligations. There’s no way to get around the math. Rand Paul is one of the few still talking about this real issue, instead of playing the Team Red/Team Blue attention-deflecting game, which is why I’m cautiously optimistic about his political future.

          • AC

            too many catch phrases. ok. i’ll concede, as a consultant, i’ve seen some mis-management of tax dollars, but it is not the norm, & the offenders are usually on their way out (old).

            & it’s saying stuff like ‘business-killing red tape’ that ruins the entire argument. tho i admit, i’m assuming your referring to maybe the EPA? which i’m sure that chemical plant in West Texas complained about quite a bit…& they are not the only ones. if you travel, you would appreciate the EPA. Oh my god, how i appreciate the EPA.

            i have mentioned before my perspective on technology replacing human jobs, and the rising population creating what i think is going to be a historical change of perspective in general on these current ideologies we are currently squabbling about. & i mean this as a world-wide shift. i just don’t want to be part of the crew known for calling out the death squads either. I’m trying to come up with something – (got zip so far, except for spending boat loads on education to prepare us for the available upcoming jobs, which will also require more ‘govt support’ (your fav, I know), for middle aged or transitional workers. poor mail workers). anyway, this was to say, your math is moot – it’s missing variables that actually can make it worse….but, to me that means libertarians are either also lying to themselves, or worse, more than willing to let millions suffer in the interim and that makes me dislike them A LOT.

            Ok. I’m talking too much…..my new project is starting tomorrow, so hopefully that will help me stay out of these disqus comments!

          • geraldfnord

            Good luck with it. I put it more simply: end the great Scarcity, and maybe we’ll stop behaving like people frightened of humiliation and of death from poverty…when I hear someone who hates welfare, I hear someone who hates their work and wants to make sure no-one else has it any easier…well, I’ve liked a lot of my work, hated some of it, and want every human to have it much easier than I have, and I think we can do it…and I think the results will be people civilised enough to consider me a barbarian nearly on par with anyone who ever accepted serfdom or slavery as ‘natural’, ‘good’, or ‘a regretful necessity’.

          • geraldfnord

            The ‘at the point of a gun’ argument is a little silly: “Libert”arians want plenty of things enforced at gun-point that could not be enforced otherwise. When a warehouse is full of grain and the people without starving, what are ‘property rights’ if not enforced through legitimised violence and its threat? How else could a man be forced to cleave unto a contract considered by him and almost everyone else to have been grossly unfair to him? How else to guard property heaped up or distant, or much property-in-land at all?

          • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

            I’m willing to entertain anarcho-syndicalist arguments, such as those against property rights. I’m not willing to entertain arguments in favor of the status quo, in which politics serves the elites at the expense of everyone else.

  • creaker

    Watch – we’re going to hear the word libertarian 6000 times, and not a single moment defining what it actually is.

    • Bluejay2fly

      Good one

    • nj_v2

      Ten minutes left, still waiting.

  • Scott B

    Norm Ornstein put it best when he said that the problem with the Republican party is they deny fact, science, history, and experience.

    Global warming isn’t real, and that human play no part in it.

    Trickledown ecomomics works

    Having a minimum wage holds people down

    Obama isn’t a US citizen and is a secret Muslim

    Poor people get free healthcare in the ER.

    Doubling down with further right positions get them more votes

    • Ray in VT

      Cato’s go to guy on climate change, Patrick J. Michaels, certainly seems to be in line with the general libertarian opposition/hostility to climate change.

    • Mike

      GW is most likely a fraud.
      TD Econ does work. (1980s…)
      Minimum wages do surpres the job market – we should get paid according to the value we add to the
      product.
      The Muslim / US citizen thing is not a Republican thing.
      Poor people do get free health care in the ER. It’s the law.
      Goodness…

      • Don_B1

        You are so wrong, on just about every count:

        1) Anthropomorphic Global Warming (which generates Climate Change) is shown true every day:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-basic.html

        2) The growth in the 1980s was NOT, repeat NOT, very good at all. It appeared to be good because of the Federal Reserve’s action (under Chair Paul Volcker) to raise interest rates to tamp down inflationary expectations, causing a strong recession, the recovery from which was strong because the Federal Reserve lowered the discount rate giving a strong stimulus to the economy. The Reagan administration raised taxes seven or eight times and there was negligible “trickle down.” See:

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/more-about-the-reagan-non-miracle/?_r=0

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/lies-damned-lies-and-growth/

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/reaganite-delusions/

        3) From studies by Demos on increased wages for Walmart workers to other studies, higher wages for workers does improve the total economy. For a general analysis, see the links provided here:

        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/minimum-wage-economics/

        4) I’m skipping this one.

        5) Providing health care in a hospital emergency room is recognized by economists on left and right as the most expensive way, for both patient and society, and does not provide good results.

      • geraldfnord

        > we should get paid according to

        > the value we add to the product.

        That’s more like the Labour Theory of Value (favoured by Karl Marx and Adam Smith) than how people are paid in a market economy, to whit as low as an employer can profitably get-away-with…unless maybe you’re indulging in a question-begging, ‘”as low as they can get-away-with” _is_ the value of their labour’ in which case everyone playing who’s circled ‘Argument by claimed tautology’ has to take a drink.

  • RolloMartins

    David Boaz: “The depression was caused by the Fed and over-regulation.” Wow. Try de-regulation and bank fraud. The Fed had nothing to do with it, and the de-regulation of banks made the Great Recession a forgone conclusion.

    • Don_B1

      This is a remnant of the well-debunked Milton Friedman’s attempt to deny the efficacy of fiscal policy when interest rates reach the zero lower bound. He wanted to claim that monetary policy was all that was needed.

      What Friedman did prove in his technical analysis of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve could have prevented the GD, but he wanted to claim that it caused it:

      http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/miltons-paradise-lost/

  • geraldfnord

    Ask Sen. Paul if, in the process of removing benefits to
    the poor and the rich, we can reasonably expect that removal to proceed as thoroughly for the powerful and often-worshipped rich as for the weak and reviled-by-most poor.

    Ask Sen. Paul if people invented the welfare state in reaction to
    precisely the sort of system he wants because that pre-existing system didn’t work humanely or decently—or was it imposed on us by Alien Space Masons, possibly with hooked probosces?

    Ask Sen. Paul if “Libert”arians really care about freedom for everyone, or just want an excuse to extract as much from a civilisation they didn’t build without paying for its up-keep…and if this will show itself in the powerful’s pressing for Libertopia and then violating its rules whenever they feel like it—I see a world in which every initiation of violence by a privileged man were ‘self-defence’, and every flowing to him from State violence _not_ an interference in The Most Holy Market because enough other powerful men say so.

    Ask Sen. Paul why the government’s not allowing me to collect on all the debts incurred by actual people who ran a fictitious person named ‘GMAC’ _isn’t_ a Statist interference in the Most Holy Free Market—limited liability used to be a privilege granted by kings to their friends and sycophants, then as now as a way for those so privileged to escaping personal responsibility for their actions.

    Ask Sen. Paul if black citizens of this nation enjoy more liberty because of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, much more liberty than white bigots have lost—even Barry Goldwater later decided that his opposition had been dead-wrong.

    “Libert”arians complain that they have to use that term because modern liberals ‘stole it’ from them (not true, as the change happened when U.K. Liberals moved from laissez-faire to an understanding of actual reality, and the term changed as its owners did)—ask him from whom his lot took the term ‘libertarian’ (here’s an hint: “Doctor Who”‘s lead character was described as ‘libertarian’ and he was no respecter of unnatural property ‘rights’ or property rights used to oppress).

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Chris Christie is the king of bacon.”

    Every time I hear that incredible zinger on public radio, I want my NPR to remind its listeners how much of a donor state New Jerseyis, and how much a moocher state Kentucky is.

  • Tom

    There sure are a lot of closed minded comments on here…..RolloMartins you should try reading the book Lords of Finance

    • nj_v2

      We’ll just guess which comments you’re referring to. It’s more fun that way.

  • AC

    i can see every child porn/molester offender will demand to have a libertarian in office. what they watch on their internet is their business, no?

    • Tom

      That is a completely ridiculous assumption…why bother listening to the program if your going to be so benighted to the idea while assuming you know so much about it?

      • AC

        sorry, i have a long standing shoulder shrug about the paranoid ‘spying’ on us rants….i’ve done a better job of explaining myself, this was just a snarky joke….

  • geraldfnord

    ‘…completing what his father started…’?

    Does that mean that he’ll publish a racist newsletter with a _wide_ circulation, and then make it a top-ten Web site, and then refuse to take responsibility for it? (After all, when you are the owner of the term ‘personal responsibility’, you get to decide when it applies to yourself—that’s just simple property rights, people.)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Can we get a liberal to interview a Libertarian, or at least be a guest?

    I have the feeling more fact-checking needs to be done for every assumption out of Boaz’ mouth.

  • Michiganjf

    What a JOKE from your Libertarian guest:

    more of this NONSENSE that the wealthy create their wealth all by their little lonesome!

    … no need for infrastructure from taxpayers, or the intellectual and physical contribution of millions!
    Ha!

    • Mike

      We all have opportunity. I am the classic case: I am very successful and came from a single parent with very little formal education. I worked on farms to pay for our family’s first air conditioner, I worked hard in school and earned scholarships to pay for college, I have traveled the world, raised wonderful children who, despite our assets, mow yards and babysit to make their own money, I have no debt (not even a mortgage) and a secure retirement and college funds for the kids. We live below our means, as our means change, our lifestyle changes. Despite conventional wisdom of the day: “Yes, I did build that!”

      • Don_B1

        But you didn’t create the school or find the good teachers that helped you learn how to learn.

        You also had the advantage of living in a time of higher mobility than there is now.

        Recently, Greg Mankiw posted an attempt to justify the income of the 1% and got roundly and deservedly criticized for it, including an article in the Economist, not exactly a liberal magazine;

        http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/inequality

  • MarkVII88

    Despite projections that only 10% of the US population would call themselves libertarian, I have to imagine that a majority of the population would support the libertarian philosophy of not taking what people have earned (if they actually really earned it) to distribute it to others.

    • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      Well, at least until it comes to their own programs being cut (Social Security, Medicare, etc.). Most people have cognitive dissonance and are unaware of it, or are hypocrites and not ashamed of it.

      • MarkVII88

        In terms of social security, if you pay into it for 30-40 years…or more…you should be entitled to get that same money out, not more though.

        • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

          What does “same money” mean? If they put in $X, should they get $X out? Or $X adjusted for inflation? Or $X adjusted for a reasonable rate of return over that time period?

          • MarkVII88

            Well, I lose the ability to invest the $$ I put into Social Security, and the ability to make that $$ work for me over the decades.

          • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

            Right, which is why I brought up that question. There’s no way to know what you would have done with that money instead, so if we accept that government transfer programs are legitimate, the guarantee has to in some sense be one-size-fits-all. Which size is appropriate here?

        • Don_B1

          Social Security is an insurance policy, sort of like an annuity, which uses expected length of life in calculating the monthly or yearly benefit. If you die early you do not get back what it cost and if you live a long time you get more, plus in either case you get part of the money the insurance company makes on what you paid for the policy.

          The only real difference is that SS is a pay-as-you-go system, where what you pay in is used to pay what the retirees are due, and their spending contributes to the economic growth of the country and therefore to your wages.

    • MOFYC

      They might if you presented this out of context.

      By contrast if you were intellectually honest and pointed that
      the trade off for keeping all that you earned was no public roads, no
      fire/police protection, no public education, etc., support might quickly
      plummet. That’s why libertarians usually only present one side of the story,
      because they know that intellectually honest full disclosure would scare people
      off. America had that world in the 18th and 19th
      centuries. People wanted better.

      • jefe68

        It was not only that people wanted better it was the onset of the industrial revolution and the growth of cites and the influx of immigrants into slums. These slums became horrific places that were full of diseases and the level of filth was out of control. It’s a matter scale and in that lies the problem with people who wax on about “small government”. What exactly does that mean in context to the needs of a civic society and the common good?

    • jefe68

      So if your hose is on fire and you don’t pay up to the private fire department it burns down. Which happened in a town in Tennessee.

      I doubt people would want to give up garbage collection, police and fire departments as well as other civic structures that are needed to have a modern society.

      Then there is education, which I agree needs to be overhauled, but not made into some private school free market mess. Not to mention roads and bridges.

      It’s interesting that the rise libertarian beliefs into the mainstream seems to coincide with demise of civics being taught in schools.

      Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

      • MarkVII88

        I don’t disagree with you. The hard part is making it clear and easily understandable what you’re actually getting for your taxes. Certainly paying for police and fire protection are direct benefits, as would be road maintenance and municipal water and sewer. But if many of the “benefits” of paying your taxes are indirect, they should be spelled-out clearly so people can start to understand more of what they’re paying for.

        • jefe68

          Is that not an argument for government transparency as opposed to less government? That’s something I think most people would agree on.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    “Competition” is about as effective at regulating unscrupulous businessmen as a split rail fence is at protecting chickens from foxes.

    Libertarian philosophy’s reliance on the ‘individual’ fails to acknowledge the basic nature of the predators in our society.

    That is the epitome of ingnorance and irresponsability.

    • jefe68

      Which is why they live in a fantasy world.

  • creaker

    So Rand Paul is pushing libertarian lite?

    • creaker

      Yup – he is pushing libertarian lite – keep the good sounding parts and ignore what will happen with the rest

  • Bruce94

    Someone should ask (Ayn) Rand Paul if he plans on standing by his man, Jack Hunter (aka “the Southern Avenger”), and re-hire him to serve in his presidential campaign. After his stint as an aide in Senator Paul’s office and co-author of Paul’s first book, seems like that would be a great fit.

  • MOFYC

    Very persuasive. I think I’ll move to the libertarian utopia
    of Somalia. No oppressive ‘big government’ to worry about there. Even better:
    everyone has at least a dozen weapons. Paradise!

    • Bluejay2fly

      They would move there if it were all white.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “I don’t see many neoconfederates in the Libertarian ranks, just one or two.”

    Wow. Seriously? Please, David Boaz, tell us how many NeoConfederates you see anywhere.

  • Scott B

    Profit is fine, but I’d think most people don’t want drug companies charging $200 for a $4 tube of ointment, or $600 for $20 worth of pills.

  • geraldfnord

    Ask Sen. Paul if he thinks Lincoln was as bad as Lenin, or just Hitler.

  • geraldfnord

    Learn this One Weird Trick, Discovered by a Kentucky Doctor, for shedding millions of useless eaters whilst enriching _good_ people.

  • nj_v2

    Since he didn’t really say much about it aside from a brief mention, i’m not sure how Mr. Boaz gets us to a functioning, non-polluted environment based solely on Libertarian property rights arguments, most of which (at least from what i’m read) seem awfully simplistic, as is typical of much of what passes for Libertarian philosophy.

    The typical mechanism often invoked is that pollution can be regarded as a kind of “trespass,” and, thus, could be regulated or legislated as it diminishes another’s free use of their property.

    But this ignores larger issues of property ownership, such as the role of public lands and public spaces of all kinds.

    • geraldfnord

      Well, they don’t want there to be any of those…problem solved!

      (And just think of the free speech implications: any private land-owner is allowed to regulate speech on her land….)

  • geraldfnord

    Opthamologists Hate Him for the weird trick he discovered to make them all look barbaric. @MomAdviceBot

    • Bluejay2fly

      Well he better be good at something because he sucks as a politician.

  • hennorama

    I thought it was a bad idea to run government via polls, Senator.

  • Jon

    = rule of the jungle

  • hennorama

    Here we go with ANOTHER poll.

  • DeJay79

    I live in Louisville, I feel a strong connection to Libertarianism. Yet I can’t stand Rand Paul. The things I have heard from him seem insincere about the important points of Libertarianism and he is Strongly passionate about social conservative issues that would take this country in a direction I don’t support.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I’m a hardcore New England suburban liberal. I want to know from a middle-southerner with an interest and immersed in a commercial local media that tilts rightward: Who is the best Libertarian pol out there?

      “Getting people who don’t agree with you on everything to join your campaign” is the goal, per Boaz. Then we wait for the great Libertarian retail politics game to kick into gear.

  • nj_v2

    Oops, minus points for RP misusing the phrase, “Begging the question.”

    • geraldfnord

      Given that I have heard many a “Libert”arian beg the question of whether more government can mean more liberty in some situations, that’s—well, not ‘ironic’, because that word doesn’t mean that, so let’s say ‘amusing’.

  • Kathy

    Listening to a Libertarian talking about civil rights makes me want to throw up. Allowing businesses the “property right” to discriminate against people based on sex, religion, and race is a major part of Libertarian philosophy.

    • Xori624

      Not a “major” part at all, but yes it is consistent with the libertarian philosophy. But it’s not just businesses, it’s you and I as well.

      For example, you have a right to let whoever you want into your own house. If you choose to disallow person X into your house because of their skin color, that is your right. It is abhorrent and makes you a crappy human being, but it is your right nonetheless. Just like you have the right to say racist things if you wish.

      Now, what if you’re selling hotdogs out of your house? Technically, you’re now running a business. Why should this change your fundamental rights? You still have a right to let in whoever you wish, because it’s your own property. The fact that it’s a business doesn’t change the foundation of property rights; it’s your business and you are free to do with it as you please.

      • Kathy

        “Why should this change your fundamental rights?”

        It’s called “Civilization.”

  • DeJay79

    whoo settle down boy

  • hennorama

    Wow. Pretty thin-skinned there, Senator. Good luck out on the campaign circuit.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Don’t you have something better than reading other peoples’ crap to me and make me answer to it?”

    Welcome to the grown up world, Senator. You can’t become President from inside a bubble.

    This is an NPR interview, chump. This is the easiest interview from a non-supplicant you are going to have until New Years Day 2017. Get used to it.

    • Mike

      RP stood up to an interviewer. He should be applauded.

      • geraldfnord

        …because Mr Paul is much more powerful than the interviewer, and likely richer, too—so _brave_ of him.

  • nj_v2

    Well, there ya go, get all righteous and indignant and pretend your history and past associations are irrelevant so you can talk about “issues.” As if coddling racism isn’t an issue. Like father, like son.

  • http://twitter.com/_sequoia Sequoia M.

    Hahahahahaha… Paul doesn’t like interviewer asking about his past.

    EDIT: on a more serious note I am interested in Paul’s past, and if he wishes to be president he should be comfortable answering questions about it. If not, he should not run.

  • Beau Thebault

    Nice way to enter the room Mr Paul. Boo hoo.

  • Mort Sinclair

    Rand Paul is a perfect example, given his cowardly and uncivil diatribe just now, of why the Republican party–Libertarian flourishes or not–will remain irrelevant.

    Take responsibility for the people you hire and write books with, Mr. Paul. You may not wish to answer the questions people have about your innate racism, but people have every right to demand answers.

    • Mike

      LIVs won’t understand when someone stands up to the media culture.

      • Mort Sinclair

        Your labeling of every person who disagrees with Sen. Paul or you as ‘LIV’ says way more about you than it does about others. You mirror EXACTLY the sort of behavior people find so objectionable about Sen. Paul–the need to insult everyone who disagrees with you. Kind of a lame tactic for a “high information voter” like yourself, dontcha think?

        • Mike

          Read it again. OK, now show me where i said EVERYONE who disagrees with him… I said: “LIVs won’t understand…” Goodness…

    • PJ McFlur

      As someone that has followed Rand Pauls political career since 2007 and listened to Jack Hunter for a few years too…

      Neither are racist. It was an attack from his own side, brought to MSNBC and displayed as a real non-story.

      Jack Hunter is southern. That doesn’t make him racist. He may have been guilty of saying ‘shock jock’ kind of things.. not being politically correct isn’t racist either.

      Really sick of seeing the ‘drip, drip, drip’ of ignorance on the subject.

      Jussayin

  • Jon

    Sounds like the son has less capacity of taking criticisms than the father? forget about running for 2016

    • Jon

      only thing I agree with the Pauls is their conservative foreign policy and that’s the right way to avoid terrorism from outside

      • Ray in VT

        I can agree with that in part. I think that we create many enemies with our actions, but even without those actions or policies there would be people opposed to us or willing to attack us or our interests for a myriad of reasons.

        • Jon

          you really believe “they hate us because we’re free”?! have you ever asked the terrorists “why do you attack us?”

          • Ray in VT

            No. I think that such a sentiment is such a vast oversimplification of a very complex situation. I think that there are some religious radicals who do consider us to be infidels and are pushing for some sort of true Islamic jihad (in the real sense of a holy war and not a personal struggle). I think that such sentiment is probably, in the grand scheme of things, even in the Muslim world, in this case, not by any means the majority opinion, and then there are always other areas that take issue with us. Our support for Israel makes us unpopular with some. Our support for corrupt or repressive regimes much us unpopular with many others.

          • Jon

            then you ought to be running for public office!

          • Ray in VT

            I’ve thought about it. The my town’s Democratic committee sought me out and offered me the opportunity to apply to serve out the remainder of our town representative’s term when our rep stepped down, but it wasn’t a good time for me and my family.

          • Jon

            family man? come on. democracy is to do not to talk

          • Ray in VT

            I do plenty, and rearing my children is a very large part of that. I greatly treasure the institution that is Town Meeting, where we get to gather, debate and vote on issues. That is a major part of my contribution to present.

          • Jon

            that I’d say is just sissy leadership. You willing to see people like Sarah Palin running the show?

          • Ray in VT

            Call it what you will. Sarah isn’t running snot right now, and I’ll consider myself a success as a parent if my kids avoid that sort of trouble that hers have gotten into.

          • Jon

            but people like her still running the show at least in congress. you’re a virtuous man that knows what’s most important – good for you and the family

          • Ray in VT

            First things first, right? Home and hearth and all that.

            She has influence, which, I think, says something, and not a good thing, about modern America, but I’m more concerned with some of the people who are in Congress now, such as Louie Gohmert, Michelle Bachmann or Steve King. Those are people that I don’t want making decisions about my life, but that is how the system works.

          • Jon

            that’s how democracy works, it’s the battle of ideas and cosmic forces, it’s the fate of western culture and all empires – your fight to the end, never give up or give in.

          • Ray in VT

            Hear, hear. This whole grand adventure in self government doesn’t just take care of itself. We all need to participate and be involved. Long ago we fought for that right, and now we have to uphold that duty.

          • Jon

            right. duty and honor, that’s the self-righteousness drive to fight for that g-d given right

          • geraldfnord

            My impression of the ‘Tea Party’ was forever cemented negatively in place when some of their early members made it their business to shout down congress-members talking about the A.C.A. at town meetings—they had so little respect for the most truly democratic institutions about that they substituted screamed invective for reasoned (if perhaps somewhat impassioned) argument, almost as if they had no real arguments and had to make do with shouting….

            But, then again, they worship the Founders, who distrusted democracy, fearing that it would empower an ignorant rabble who neither took the time to understand issues nor could form reasonable arguments, and who would therefor turn first to passionate shouting and then, if still frustrated, violence.

      • Xori624

        If that’s the ONLY thing you agree with them on, then you basically believe that the government should control everything, economically and socially. That’s a very scary thought.

  • Michiganjf

    Did Paul just claim The Economist magazine is anti-Libertarian??!!!!

    Good Grief!!!!

    Obviously this GOOF can’;t even take criticism from his own camp!!!!

    POOR Rand Paul is so “beat up on…”

    …and how funny is it to hear Republican callers calling anyone else posting here “snarky?”
    Read any of these boneheaded conservative posts lately?

    How’s THAT for snark?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001708537001 Joshua Evans

    Senator Paul has a point about the tax code, but there are so many loopholes that the corporate tax rate is functionally far lower than 35%. We should lower the corporate tax rate, but that must be accompanied by getting rid of loopholes that, among other things, allow companies like GE to pay no taxes at all.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      But that goes against GE’s phalanx of 400,000 tax lawyers natural superiority: Both you and I, cubical drones, and GE, have all the freedom to influence the tax code and enforcement of same.

      You and I are just inferior sorts, and therefore are stuck paying taxes.

      • geraldfnord

        Glad to hear the proper attitude in the lower orders!: if God had liked you, he would have made you one of his Unconditionally Elected; given that He did not and that you are chaff merely awaiting the furnace (poverty in this life, Hell-fire in the next) it wouldn’t be _polite_ to act as if you had rights or any legitimate claim to power.

        Good show, I appreciate it. And since what has been deprecated as the ‘Abominable Fancy’ is in fact correct, I shall also enjoy seeing your pain in this world and in the next—it’s all part of my pleasure.

    • Mike

      Keep going… you are on the right track. It ends with no corporate tax. Corporations don’t pay taxes, consumers do. taxes are a cost of doing business, raise taxes and the price of the good or service must compensate for that. A consumption tax with accommodations for the poor is where its at.

    • Xori624

      There should be no corporate taxes; it is double taxation, because the corporate income is taxed, and then the remaining money is given back to the shareholders via dividends, which are also taxed.

      • geraldfnord

        If they need to be a legal person to allow their shares-holders to escape responsibility for the entity they’ve created, that person can pay taxes.

  • Bluejay2fly

    No one mentions that at Howard University Rand Paul said “Some people think I am either brave or crazy coming here tonight” Really? Are black people, even when they are college students, that scary?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Eh, I don’t read his comments that way. “Crazy” as in “given the right’s fascination with voter suppression and shredding the safety net, going to Howard seems like looking for drinking water in the Sahara”.

      However, I can’t remember the last time a liberal got such a tepid welcome that didn’t become a week-long meme in itself.

      • Ray in VT

        I don’t read it that way either. My take was people calling him crazy for doing so because of how little success the GOP has had in attacking African American voters.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Yeah, it seemed like a case of “overextending his supply lines”, to use a “Risk” analogy.

          If there’s a bunch of ground-game outreach, behind-the-scenes stuff–you know, real politicking–he could do which would end up with a triumphant historical appearance at a place like Howard, I can’t imagine it. Because there’s just no washing that with the modern right wing.

          • Ray in VT

            I love Risk. It’s one of the best games ever invented.

        • PJ McFlur

          That was exactly it. Talk about a double edge sword. He tries to reach out to that community and gets labeled negatively for it. So what is he supposed to do? Not speak to them?

          At least he shows up.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ll give him credit for showing up. At least he had the nerve to go into a likely politically hostile environment, although I would question the wisdom in his questioning the knowledge of his audience on the history of civil rights.

          • PJ McFlur

            Touche!! I agree. I watched it live and just shook my head. The way he handled the misstep is what showed his integrity though. He smiled real big. :)

      • Bluejay2fly

        True, but its an incredibly stupid thing to say and given the steep hill he had to climb that was like a rainstorm. So he is not a racist but stupid? I think perhaps both.

    • OnPointComments

      No, black people aren’t scary, but they are a monolithic voting bloc of the Democrat Party. He was either brave or crazy to dare go to a black college and speak anything other than the Democratic Party line.

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, I wonder how his principled stand against discrimination laws played with a group that has historically faced horrible discrimination. That should have gone over really well, right?

  • JohnCappola

    It appears that Rand is getting a bit too defensive. John Harwood is not the one to accuse of ad hominem comments. John is too smart an interviewer to argue with.

    • Mike

      JH didn’t sound too smart this morning. RP put him in his place. Too often conservatives just accept the media’s status quo and take the verbal beating. Not today.

  • Guest

    Why do we let these sociopaths have so much quality airtime when they get it 24/7 broadcasted through Faux News. The idea of libertarianism is just a smoke screen to allow the abuse, exploitation and pillaging of the wealthy elite and sell off the entire country to a few private barons. Serf Nation and Feudal Society redux! I am truly appalled to hear this show. There should be art least a guest who can punch trough the hot air balloon and expose these charlatans for what they are: the rebirth of the the John Birch Society.

  • AC

    i don’t think it’s a good idea to isolate ourselves so, the world is getting smaller & more crowded. there is a generation up & coming that does not even accept or believe in human ‘countries/boundary lines’….

    • Tom

      I think that the loss of state sovereignty and the idea of deteriorated boundaries are one of the biggest threats from globalization and those that do not accept or believe in borders only further that threat.

      • AC

        to be honest, i’m not that big a fan of the idea myself yet, nor the loss of intellectual property rights which is another big sect of futurists, but i think that is where we will evolve to someday….in a few thousand years when people are more civil & dignified to one another….
        i mean, they still shoot little girls for wanting an education in some ‘countries’….

        • fun bobby

          in a few thousand years it will be those dammed dirty apes running the earth

  • Crozet_barista

    Why do we let these sociopaths have so much quality airtime when they get it 24/7 broadcasted through Faux News. The idea of libertarianism is just a smoke screen to allow the abuse, exploitation and pillaging by the wealthy elite and sell off the entire country to a few private barons. Privatization of all essential government services equates pure fascism. Serf Nation and Feudal Society redux! I am truly appalled to hear this show. There should be art least a guest who can punch trough the hot air balloon and expose these charlatans for what they are: the rebirth of the the John Birch Society.

    • Mike

      Let me make my own decisions (light bulbs, toilets, retirement plans, health care…); let me take care of my family; let me carry my load. Take away incentives to rely on the MAN. Spend what you have and no more. LIVs (Low information Voters) probably will never get it as they either don’t have the will or capacity.

      • AC

        i think this argument is missing too many variables to be even remotely functional. you may want to try something a little more down to earth, practical & less self righteous, pride goeth before the fall and all that drivel…..

        • Mike

          That doesn’t even make sense. Try again.

          • AC

            you will find one part of the equation in a reply to you on another comment. good luck learning how to manage multiple variables!! i’m still trying to master it myself….

    • fun bobby

      so slavery really is freedom! silly people yearning to be free

  • http://twitter.com/_sequoia Sequoia M.

    Man I can’t believe this guy… he becomes indignant when the interviewer asks basically ANY question that isn’t “So tell us about your campaign planks, Mr Paul.” Whatever, he’ll get points on the Right for battling the mean ol’ liberal media.

    EDIT: lol that was fast… see WorriedfortheCountry’s comment, above.

    • Mike

      He stands up for issues and to silly off track questions. LIVs (Low information voters) won’t get it; they don’t have the will or capacity; perhaps neither.

      • http://twitter.com/_sequoia Sequoia M.

        “Where is your birth certificate?” = pressing issue
        “Didn’t your core staff recently include people who were openly racist? What does this say about your ideology?” = silly, off track question.

      • adks12020

        Questions about key members of his staff are not off topic. If he is incapable of properly vetting his staff it speaks to his ability as an executive.

  • AC

    i actually listen to the show, your timing is off, that’s all…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Okay, it’s time to start interrupting the firehose of crap from Rand Paul.

    Where is the liberal or economist to rebut this?

    And, once more, the next right-winger or Libertarian I can trust to touch my SocSec and Medicare will be the first.

    • Mike

      Like your SS is safe now? My goodness, SS is a government run Ponzi scheme. I want control of my money. I don’t trust the Man with it at all. I trust ME. It is MY responsibility to take care of my family and me, not the Government’s.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        “Govt run Ponzi scheme.”

        No more calls, please. We have a loser.

        Good luck with your jetpack, bub.

        • Mike

          LIVs won’t get it. Go ahead and trust the government with your future. I personally am taking care of my family; anything the government gives will be an unexpected bonus. I am responsible for me and my family. I will not abrogate that to the government. (I know, to many this is a paradigm in which they don not exist and can not see.)

          • Mike

            LIV = Low Information Voter

          • AC

            it’s like a LIR = Low Information Reader. another favorite, no?

      • AC

        i pray you and your family retain your unbelievable health and luck in not getting hit by cars or anything else like that…..but, unfortunately, i am only an agnostic….

      • jimino

        So you don’t participate in insurance, or is that a Ponzi scheme too? Do you invest your money in publicly held companies or mutual funds? How about banks? If you do, how do you know you can trust in those entities?

  • nj_v2

    Mr. Paul’s reflexive defensiveness doesn’t really serve him well.

    • Mike

      The truth is not defensive. It is truth.

  • adks12020

    Wow, Rand Paul is going to have to grow up and learn to be a big kid in interviews before he can win a Presidential election.

    • hennorama

      Sen. Paul’s righteous indignation is part of his schtick.

      But regardless of whether he changes his style or not, there’s NO WAY he can win a Presidential election.

      Unless all of the other candidates die, of course, and probably not even then.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Hardwood brings the liberal NYtimes mindset to the questioning. It is about time these guys attack the framing of the questions. Good for Paul, we need to see more like this.

    • Joanne Brown

      I guess the Rand Paul defenders got called in.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Huh? I just turned on the broadcast.

        It is surprising that the liberals on board are so upset with Paul not playing dead fish to the way the questions are framed. Frankly, I believe the media gets away with it way too much and they should be called on it. It is a much better way of handling it than simply whining about a biased media.

    • Jeff

      I sorta agree, but he did dodge a very legitimate question from the interviewer (basically, wouldn’t you have opposed the creation of SS in the first place, on ideological grounds)? He kept answering by saying “we are working to save it and make it sustainable,” which isn’t an answer to the question. For wanting to talk about ideals and principles, he should have jumped all over this question.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Sounds like a good question for the faculty lounge but not for someone who is running for office. If you watched the GOP primary debates the liberal media questioners loaded up with irrelevant hypotheticals in a thinly veiled attempt to set a trap for potential candidates. The most famous of these was probably George Stephanopolous asking Romney about banning contraception — he reasked the question 4 more times when Romney didn’t take the bait.

        • Jeff

          Paul himself is the one who said in the interview that he wanted to discuss ideas and issues. I think from that standpoint it’s very relevant to ask whether he would have opposed the creation of such programs in the first place. It doesn’t stretch the imagination to consider similar proposals being made in the near future, at which point the ideology would become immediately relevant.

    • OnPointComments

      Following are links for the probing and in-depth interviews of President Obama where difficult questions were asked about his past and current associations, and the answers President Obama provided about his invocation of executive privilege on Fast & Furious, the fulfillment of his promise to get to the bottom of the killings in Benghazi, the procedures he has instituted to make sure that the records of journalists are never seized again by the DOJ, and what he has done to curtail the “outrageous” (his word) targeting of conservatives by the IRS:

      • HonestDebate1

        Promotions and paid vactions for all involved!

  • Yar

    Why shouldn’t the dollar I put in Social Security today not pay me back 3 dollars twenty or thirty years from now? Rand Paul is not being intellectually honest.

    • Bluejay2fly

      Its not an IRA, your dollar pays todays recipients. Furthermore demographic changes upset the paradigm and as the baby boomers retire we now have more recipients than workers so the system is in peril.

      • hennorama

        Yeah, except NO. The current covered worker/beneficiary ratio is approx. 3:1.

        • Bluejay2fly

          I misspoke, the ratio is not upside down but is dangerously close to being lower than the sustainable average. I think using SS as part of your retirement plans is irresponsible. After paying in 44 years I shall get 1200 a month, hardly a sum to live on.

          • hennorama

            Bluejay2fly – TY for your response.

            Indeed, the covered worker/beneficiary ratio has declined and continues to do so. This argues for increased immigration, especially of foreign-born men, and non-whites, who have a much higher Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) than do the native-born.

            According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

            “In 2012, the labor force participation rate of the foreign born was 66.3 percent, compared with 63.2 percent for the native born. The labor force participation rate was 78.5 percent for foreign-born men and 68.6 percent for native-born men. Among women, 54.8 percent of the foreign born were labor force participants, compared with 58.2 percent of the native born.”

            “Among the foreign born, the labor force participation rate for blacks was 70.6 percent in 2012, little different from the participation rate for Hispanics (69.0 percent). The participation rate for Asians was 64.7 percent, while that for whites was 60.1 percent. Among the native born, the labor force participation rates for Hispanics and whites were 63.9 percent and 63.7 percent, respectively, higher than the rates for Asians (61.5 percent) and blacks (60.0 percent). The labor force participation rates for foreign-born blacks, Asians, and Hispanics were higher than for their native-born counterparts, while the rate for foreign-born whites was lower than the rate for native-born whites.”

            See:
            http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf

            As to your idea that “using SS as part of your retirement plans is irresponsible” – I disagree. Certainly the older one is, the more likely the return on your lifetime contributions will be greater, and the closer one is to SS retirement age, the more likely it is that you will receive 100% of projected benefits (assuming you live long enough). For these reasons, it’s reasonable to plan for SS benefits as part of your projected retirement income.

            Younger workers have far less predictability at the moment.

            And certainly it is unrealistic to rely on SS benefits for the entirety of one’s income in retirement, regardless of one’s age.

            TY again for your response.

          • Bluejay2fly

            Your certainly correct about the foreign labor argument and within our existing structure that is probably the most logical step. I do see one of our greatest national problems is the lack of middle class jobs and rising taxes. My property taxes are 500 per month which means that my SS which is 1200 leaves me with only 700 right from square one. In this case SS becomes a wash because school and property taxes (which impact renters as well) take a large portion of SS right from the get go and other taxes finish off the benefit. The even more disturbing thing about this system is how our government both state and federal tax us massively but still are running up massive debt. NYS takes in 120 Billion and owes 140 Billion our national debt is at least 15 Trillion and I am certain my town and county are broke as well. The pressure to continue and squeeze everybody especially those who cannot flee ( e.g. retirees) with crippling taxes shall never cease. Unfortunately, many who benefit the most from the system are degenerates like criminals who get free room, board, medical, etc or those who run up huge medical bills (I.E teen pregnancy, some thug being shot up by another thug,). I know corporate welfare is even worse but I am trying to keep this rant short. SS was more useful before the government became spendthrifts and discovered the retired worker cannot escape certain taxes.

          • hennorama

            Bluejay2fly – TY again for your response.

            One thing about politics and logic – they seldom coexist.

            We agree in that the real economic issue is that we need three things – jobs, jobs, and more jobs, of any sort. This will help reduce Federal expenditures for income support programs, increase Federal revenues, and assist the recovery by getting more funds flowing from consumers to businesses, offsetting some of the negative economic impacts of the sequester.

            Allow me to point out another perspective – while you may be unhappy with the level of your SS benefits, imagine where you would be without them.

            If your argument is against all taxes – that’s a difficult argument to make. Most Americans believe government is obliged to do certain things – to provide a safety net for the weak, poor and disadvantaged, and to provide for the national defense, etc. So there are things we want, many of which require big government, but when we get big government we don’t like it because we’re distrustful of government, especially big government. And we’re loathe to pay for it as well.

            One nice thing about the US is that there is a large variety of choice in where to live, and significant variability in terms of state and local taxes. Moving is seldom easy, but the choice is available. If your sole concern is the level of state & local taxation, it’s an option to consider.

            I’ll leave the balance of your post unremarked upon, as I suspect further agreement will be difficult to come by.

            Thanks again for your response.

    • Bruce94

      If you peel back the layers of the so-called reforms that Paul and his ilk are proposing, they would roll back the New Deal including ending SS & Medicare as we know them. In addition, the laissez-faire, States’ rights philosophy at the core of libertarianism would, if unleashed, jeopardize more than a century of progress on securing equal rights for ethnic & racial minorities as well as women & gays, and collective bargaining rights for labor.

  • Joanne Brown

    Ironic that his book is titled “Government bullies …” when Paul sounds like the real bully. Not ready for prime time, ever.

  • Sam

    I’m not a Libertarian (and I think the philosophy has serious problems), but this interview is noticeably biased and hostile towards the guest. I kind of agreed with Paul when he refused to respond to yet another nasty quote about him. Not great journalism.

    • fun bobby

      yeah freedom is fraught with problems. who needs it?

      • Sam

        I’m not sure I understand this reply. Personally, I agree with many elements of Libertarianism, but I don’t think it would work if adopted in any pure form on a national scale. So, the choice is not between freedom and no freedom, it’s a matter of choosing a pragmatic balance that works.

        • fun bobby

          what part of personal freedom is unworkable?

          • Sam

            The parts that hurt other people (physically or financially)

          • fun bobby

            personal liberty does not include liberty to harm others. perhaps you could provide an example

          • Sam

            This is precisely the problem: it’s hard to define exactly where one person’s freedom ends and another’s begins. We already spend a lot of time and money in court arguing about these issues, and it would get much, much worse in a pure Libertarian system.

            Here’s an example: your next door neighbor decides to use his property for a pig farm. The smell is awful all the time and property values in your neighborhood plummet. Has he harmed you? I would say yes, but you’d have to litigate the question (at great expense).

            I’m not saying the current system couldn’t be improved, but there is a lot of knowledge and experience in the current system of rules (case law, for example). Throwing that away would be incredibly costly — every single issue would have to be negotiated and litigated from scratch. I guess if you work in the legal system it’s good news.

          • fun bobby

            your example provided the solution to the problem you posed. that’s why we have a court system. perhaps before going to court they could try to work it out for free. perhaps the neighbor could throw a block party BBQ or something. I would rather spend money on courts than domestic spies and prisons. with all the fees you could even make courts revenue neutral. I don’t think we need to dispose of all case law to have liberty

          • Sam

            Hmmm. I’m skeptical. We are already such a litigious society, I think we’d spend all our time suing each other. Right now we get a lot of benefit from a uniform set of rules that people mostly agree on. Having to argue about every single situation sounds incredibly inefficient, and a huge drag on our economy.

            I think you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For the most part, things are pretty good for us (look around the world), so throwing out our current system seems more likely to be a losing proposition. Let’s address the specific things we know are problems, like domestic spying, secret prisons, etc.

          • fun bobby

            Right now we get a lot of benefit from a uniform set of rules that people mostly agree on.
            of course, do you think violence and force are needed to maintain that? have I proposed anarchy?
            I have not proposed anarchy I have proposed personal liberty. banning things is economically inefficient by definition and causes the market failures we are seeing now.

          • Sam

            I guess I don’t understand what you’re proposing. It sounds like a radical change, but I’m not sure. Just saying “personal freedom” doesn’t explain how all the complex functions of a modern society will work.

          • fun bobby

            what a sad commentary that personal freedom seems like some sort of radical change. we can start with doing away with nsa cia and anything else that’s secret. we can disband our standing army. we can end corporate personhood and welfare. we can affirm peoples basic human rights as enumerated in the bill of rights are inalienable. we can repeal laws that constrict individuals liberties such as helmet laws and speed limits and such. what would be so bad about that?

          • Sam

            Those are pretty different kinds of things. I don’t like the CIA/NSA thing, but I think we’d make ourselves very vulnerable if we get rid of everything (including the army). If I were a terrorist I would certainly view that as good news.

            Ending corporate personhood and welfare — I’m with you on that.

            If we didn’t have speed limits, though, the roads would be more dangerous for all of us, not just the people who choose to drive too fast. I’m sure we’d see more crashes (certainly more severe crashes). Doesn’t that impose a cost on everyone and take away their freedom?

          • fun bobby

            fear is how they keep you subservient. who is really trying to scare you the government and media or some idiot in a cave?(who they trained in the first place)
            in considering your response bear in mind the police are 8 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist.
            why would people choose to drive “too fast”? do the laws actually prevent that now or just provide a revenue stream for the state? I would think the really reckless drivers would be off the road within a week (there is no breaking the laws of physics) so people should be really careful for the first week or so. if people do choose to drive recklessly and cause an accident then they are responsible for the costs associated with that just as they are now. the highway system ours was designed after has no speed limit. you make a false assumption that the reason not to speed is to obey the law when the real reason not to speed is not to get in an accident and assume liability. its the same reason seat belt laws are foolish. the best reason to wear a seatbelt is not to avoid a $25 ticket its to avoid death. most people are not that stupid and the ones that are will have to pay the price whether or not there are traffic cops shaking down people

          • Sam

            The evidence is very strong that removing speed limits and seat belt laws would lead to much more dangerous roads. A lot of data has been collected on this particular issue. The cost to society would be huge — more injuries and deaths, less mobility, higher costs for insurance, transportation, and trucking. And if you kill someone while driving recklessly, you can never repay that cost.

            I agree that these laws don’t force people to drive safely, but they serve as a kind of leadership and a statement of general expectations. And in most cases they are completely reasonable. The only freedom you are enabling is the freedom for things to be worse.

          • fun bobby

            seems to be fine for the autobahn. studies show that the more traffic controls you remove the safer the roads become and the less traffic you have.
            if tim murry does not roll his state owned car driving 120mph on the mass pike is it a problem?
            people are held accountable for killing others all the time. it does not bring people back but its the best we can do
            they serve as a revenue source for the police. I would like for the speed limits to be a suggestion.

        • fun bobby

          so we should trade essential liberty for the illusion of security?

    • GreyTreed

      I see your point about the bias, but this is also Big Boy politics ya know… When you go out of your way to make it known that you are running for prez the way Rand Paul has you HAVE GOT TO be prepared for simple questions like that! He has been asked about his severely racist staff member the ‘Southern Avenger’ subject repeatedly and always gives a similar defensive response!

      (I mean he refused to even fire the guy initially let alone issue any sort of statement to denounce his very close, high ranking staff member’s CRAZY hate speech and only eventually let him go under very extreme pressure to do so, and so I think the people he is courting votes and money from have a right to get something substantive from the guy on the subject ya know!! just my opinion)

  • Mike

    Rand Paul is doing what every politician should do: stand up to interviewers asking silly questions. He made the interviewer look silly and child like.

    • adks12020

      He made himself look like a child. A petulant little child. Paul will be asked those questions if he runs for president. The fact that he reacted so poorly is telling.

      • Mike

        Even though the interviewer may have looked and acted like a child he still needs to be corrected when correction is needed.

      • jefe68

        Rand Paul is many things, presidential material is not one of them.

        • HonestDebate1

          That didn’t stop Obama.

  • soundfriend

    He’s falling apart just like the ideology he truly represents.

    “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

  • hennorama

    “Repatriating” overseas profits of US corporations didn’t work the last time, Senator, in 2004.

    During this economic recovery, corporations are trying to get an even BETTER deal, pushing for a one-time tax holiday for repatriated foreign profits. One big problem – it doesn’t result in much in the way of new jobs or investment, as a study of the well-documented failure of the 2004 holiday shows:

    “Higher levels of repatriations . . . were not associated with increased domestic capital expenditures, domestic employment, or research and development expenditures. . . . Even firms that increased contributions to Congressmen responsible for drafting the [repatriation provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004] and that belonged to a lobbying coalition that asserted that the tax holiday would allow them to increase domestic investment did not significantly increase their domestic expenditures. [Dhammika Dharmapala, C. Fritz Foley, and Kristin Forbes, "Watch What I Do, Not What I Say: The Unintended Consequences of the Homeland Investment Act," Journal of Finance, June 2011.]”

    See:

    http://www.people.hbs.edu/ffoley/HIA.pdf

    • fun bobby

      right but its a great chance for profit taking. what we need to end is the transfer pricing that goes on

      • hennorama

        fun bobby – TY for your response.

        The rules relating to transfer pricing are far too complex to go into here, but in my view, if an analysis shows arms-length equivalence, then it would be reasonable.

        On the other hand, transferring patents and other intangible property without reasonable compensation appears on its face to be a tax evasion scheme rather than tax avoidance.

        Tax avoidance is fine, but tax evasion is not.

        • fun bobby

          untill i can take advantage of international law to lower my personal tax burden then its not right

          • hennorama

            fun bobby – All you need to do is to get some foreign-sourced income. Then you CAN use the tax code to lower your personal tax burden.

            For example, for Tax Year 2013 you can exclude up to $97,600 of foreign earned income from US taxation. You can also use foreign income taxes paid as a credit against US taxes, or as an itemized deduction.

          • fun bobby

            yes I will get right on transferring my patents to my office in grand Cayman for the products I produce in Ireland. I will produce nothing but debt in America all of which I will write off. ending that shell game would solve a lot of problems

    • PJ McFlur

      yea.. keeping capital out of the country is a grand idea. There goes that great sucking sound that we were warned about!!

      • hennorama

        PJ McFlur – TY for your response.

        There’s nothing keeping capital out of the US. What’s happening is corporations don’t have to pay US taxes on non-repatriated foreign profits, so they choose to keep the profits overseas. That’s by CHOICE.

        Corporations, especially multinationals, are doing just fine. Corporate taxes are less than 8% of total Federal revenues, even as corporations have had record profits.

        These super-large businesses can shift their operations fairly easily and quickly, so they play various tax authorities against each other, holding jobs and operations and tax revenues hostage in order to get the best tax deal.

        The referenced study also stated that “estimates indicate that a $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.60-$0.92 increase in payouts to shareholders—despite regulations stating that such expenditures were not a permitted use of repatriations qualifying for the tax holiday. The results indicate that U.S. multinationals were not financially constrained and were reasonably well-governed. The fungibility of money appears to have undermined the effectiveness of the regulations.“

        There’s nothing wrong with corporations returning profits to shareholders – that’s what they’re supposed to do. But don’t claim some righteous reason for wanting a tax holiday, or that the result will be anything other than getting the money into shareholder hands.

        • PJ McFlur

          Ill be honest.. Economics is not what Im in this for or my strongest issue. Civil liberties, peace and ending the drug war are my top issues. As I understand it, our policies are chasing capital out of the country. Money is always going to go where it is wanted. You can’t blame people for trying to keep the fruits of their labor.

          • hennorama

            PJ McFlur – Thank you for your response, and especially for your candor.

            Again, there’s nothing preventing US corporations from repatriating their overseas profits. Their objection is that they would have to pay tax on them. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this view, as business can and should do whatever it can to legally reduce their tax obligations.

            As to “trying to keep the fruits of their labor” – let’s just say that there are significant ways corporations reduce their US tax liability that have absolutely nothing to do with how the profits are earned, and some of these techniques can be fairly characterized as “gaming the system.”

            My point is that it’s disingenuous for anyone to claim some beneficent purpose in lobbying for a change to US tax law that would reduce the tax on overseas profits. Sen. Paul said that “there’s about a Trillion, 2 Trillion dollars overseas in American profits that would come home if we’d let it come home at about a 5% tax rate. Currently it”s about 35% … I offered an amendment … it would have DOUBLED the infrastructure spending .. if [President Obama] would just go along with changing this tax rate…”

            Quick arithmetic indicates a 5% rate would generate a maximum of $100 Billion in Federal revenue. Not a small sum, but not terribly significant in terms of Federal spending. It’s less than 2 years worth of Federal spending on surface transportation infrastructure projects – highways, mass transit, and passenger rail.

            And it pales in comparison to what would be collected at a 35% tax rate – $700 Billion.

            Anyone would LOVE to be able to pay 1/7 of their current tax rate, of course, and there’s nothing wrong with trying to get the rate lowered.

            Just don’t pretend that it would be anything other than a huge windfall for corporate shareholders.

      • HonestDebate1

        I just had a Ross Perot flashback.

    • Bruce94

      I skimmed the article. So if correct, is it fair to characterize Paul’s profit repatriation plan as a form of corporate welfare? It certainly would be consistent with the laissez-faire, unregulated model of rapacious capitalism that the libertarian fringe is noted for.

      • hennorama

        Bruce94 – TY for your response.

        Yes, one might characterize this idea as “corporate welfare.”

        It’s not as if corporations need any MORE help these days, though. They have had record profits as a percentage of GDP, and the share of total Federal revenues corporations pay has fallen to under 8%.

        Simultaneously.

        In contrast, wages and salaries as a share of GDP have reached record LOWS.

        Again, simultaneously.

        BTW – this is coincident to the decline in US union membership as a percentage of the total workforce, since 1970.

        Make what you will of the above.

    • HonestDebate1

      “During this economic recovery…”

      That’s a good one.

      • hennorama

        1Bonehead Test – TY for your kind words.

        • HonestDebate1

          You’re welcome, funny is funny. Credit where credit is due.

  • Joe

    Harwood was way too easy on this guy – he let Paul dictate the scope and terms of the interview – at least Paul proved he lacks the temperment to be a viable presidential candidate.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “I paid for this microphone”

      Who said that?

  • HonestDebate1

    Do you think Obama is a Christian as he claims?

  • Potter

    wow… I was just driving and listening to Rand Paul beat up on our OP interviewer all the while he was complaining about being beat up. What a nasty fellow. Is this Libertarianism, not wanting to talk about issues regarding his character ( which was on display? Okay then I was also not impressed by how swiftly he gives his solutions and prescriptions. Perhaps a show should delve into them deeply…. the consequences and choices especially. That said his stand on drones and going after citizens without placing them on trial is right on.

    So if I had to pick a candidate for office, I would not pick him for that one issue.

    As well, it seems to me that Libertariansim fits into the Republican party a whole lot better than it fits into the Democratic party even though Democrats are strong on civil liberties. We all are- or should be.

    • fun bobby

      “As well, it seems to me that Libertariansim fits into the Republican party a whole lot better than it fits into the Democratic party even though Democrats are strong on civil liberties. We all are- or should be.”
      yes but in practice are they? (not that the pubs are)
      I spent the weekend trapped with some democrats. they were trying to get into everyone’s business and tell them how to live. it was uncanny.
      I did not get a chance to ask them why their party supports institutionalized racism and drug cartels. do you know why they support those things?

      • Potter

        Questions for you bobby. How did Democrats manage to trap you??Telling everybody how to live sounds more like Republicans. Are you sure they were Democrats?And if you were trapped, you should have had the chance to ask your questions…although they may have asked you to explain first and then you would have to listen and engage seriously.

        • fun bobby

          I was working next to one of their information booths. I did not really want to upset them as I was busy working. they were in a democrat booth with signs saying they were democrats. they told an older man he should stop smoking. he asked why, they said it was unhealthy, he asked if they thought he was stupid or ignorant. it was funny. they then harassed a person giving out mardi gras beads. they thought it was their place , “as a father and a grandfather” to question the safety of the beads. I saw one throw away a plastic water bottle. I told him I was going to tell headquarters he failed to recycle. Hippocrates.
          one funny thing is that one of the candidates was literally named “butynski” truth in advertising I guess.
          are you a democrat? can you answer my questions? they are very simple. I noticed you did not do so.

  • 65noname

    Typical government radio. Caving to the rantings of paul when he didn’t want to face criticism. And allows to paul to say without rebuttal that supporters such as hunter are not racist and fails to respond that hunter states that an non-white US majority would cease to be “america”, praises white supremacist Sam Francis, blasts the House of Representative’s apology for slavery” while calling upon black Americans to “apologize to white people for their high crime rates”. Of course, the announcer sbhould have ended the conversation when paul declared any critical writings about him to be off limits in the interview.
    One wonders where the same deference is when interviewing or talking about left wing people. Ooops!!! Forgot!!!! Left wing people aren’t fit subjects for government radio and it’s announcers.

    • fun bobby

      hunters are racist? there are hunter states?

      • 65noname

        dude– assuming that you are really asking real questions, jack hunter, paul’s former staff dude and the co-author of a book that paul wrote.

        • fun bobby

          people say all sorts of crazy things here. hunters are racist would not be the craziest one. I am not familiar with rand’s book or his coauthor

          • 65noname

            look up “jack hunter” on wikipedia. also I meant “hunter states” as in “hunter says”. Sorry about the confusion

          • fun bobby

            my bad

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    1920s / 1990s / 2008: The Free Market

    1940s – 1979: The Regulated Market

    ’nuff sed.

    • Mark

      How about the 1930′s, 1970′s, 2000′s- all results of bad Fed policy.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        True, bad Fed policy sparked by runaway speculation of a “Free Market”.

        The 2000s roller coaster is the result of bad Fed policy, an increasingly unregulated financial sector and computers. I expect those wild oscillating waves to continue for the foreseeable future until Common Sense regulation and enforcement prevail.

        Face It: All men must be managed. Then … who watches The Watchers? Questions … where are the answers?

        • Mark

          Virtually every major bubble is fueled by persistent easy credit. Excessive speculation is the byproduct of easy money. That was especially true during the housing bubble. Correct monetary would have been a far better deterrent than more regulation.

          And when you say “free market,” the banking sector is not a free market. Subsidized deposit insurance and access to liquidity from a central bank plant the seeds of banking panics. That might mean you need regulations in the current system, but don’t call it free market. The problems in banking stem entirely from too much government not too little.

    • fun bobby

      actually it seems like you left quite a bit out. 1970 is when productivity and wages ceased to rise together

    • thequietkid10

      Actually the 1920s were pretty awesome, especially since post World War 1 we saw a stock market crash that was BIGGER then the 1929 crash.

      Late 90s was one of the best times in this countries history IMO.

  • 1Brett1

    Ah, yes, the cries of “foul!” The one caller mentioned how people weren’t listening to Paul’s message but were levying criticisms (an ad hominem attack in and of itself). Paul replied with something like, “good point!” Prior to that, Paul wanted to shut down a criticism by the host, but then brought it up twice later…So, it’s “let’s talk about issues and steer clear of criticisms; of course, unless I want to criticize those who criticize me and want to use for effect the ‘poor, persecuted libertarian’ meme.” Paul did little but spout populist, libertarian, feel-good Tea Party platitudes with no substance. The program was infinitely more interesting before his twenty minutes of nonsense.

    • brettearle

      He has to answer to his associations and his ties.

      Harwood could sense that Paul was possibly going to “walk off” the show–if the host did not re-direct the line of questioning.

      No host–well respected or well known, or not–wants that to happen.

      Nevertheless, no guest–who holds high office or is planning to hold high office–should be allowed to get away with that.

      [What's more, it speaks to Paul's thin skin. Which is a problem in itself.]

      There should be ground rules, perhaps–for boundaries, before interviews–if programs and producers are sensitive to personalities and the subjects to be covered….even though, theoretically, I oppose this. In a case like Paul, it might be necessary.

      But Brett, do you not line up with some of Paul’s concerns about privacy and civil liberties? I do.

      I don’t like Paul personally–and I would very likely not vote for him for the `personal element’ and for issues he might stand for. But he might have some fair points.

      To me, for example, the Gitmo issue was valid. And to bring up Japanese interment was surely fair. But there are other issues where we might concur.

      • 1Brett1

        I think thin skinned is a good way to characterize Paul’s interaction. He could have gotten out of that with grace, but he’s no silver tongue.

        You know, it’s not Paul’s general statements about anything that really bother me (or those which come from libertarians as a whole). For one thing, much of what he says is so general, and one dimensional, no one would really disagree with it. I see his rhetoric as that, and he’s a kind of populist/demagogue. I see him as dishonest, a grandstander, a demagogue, and he hasn’t worked to get anything done in his current position, and I’m just not that impressed with anything he says; it seems like fluff and superficial. He also has that quality where he attacks other people and their ideas yet tries so hard to sound like he’s above the fray. So many libertarians have that self-righteous and hypocritical quality. I also see in him a similar quality I saw in Romney: that they see the general citizenry as not intelligent and will buy a bill of goods…it’s always better to see the public as intelligent and that they have every right to scrutinize you. He seems to want to deflect such scrutiny.

        • PJ McFlur

          I disagree… It may have taken 13 hours for him to get the answer to his question.

          Does this administration believe it has the power to kill American citizens without due process?

          From my position… that was an honorable thing to do.

          • 1Brett1

            I was speaking about something else entirely…perhaps your “reply” would have worked better as a comment rather than a reply?!

  • HonestDebate1

    Now Rand Paul in on Beck’s show. He’s making the rounds.

    • fun bobby

      becks radio show is pretty funny huh?

      • AC

        who is beck?

        • Ray in VT

          A real tool.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Not a fan Ray?
            Do you watch or listen or are you going by what you’ve heard?

          • Ray in VT

            Indeed I am not a fan, and I go by what I consider to be an acceptable amount of sampling.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Fair enough. He was fairly hard on Obama when he had his Fox show.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m fine with that, so long as one sticks to facts. I am against the conspiracy theories (FEMA concentration camps), the crying bugs me as an stiff upper lip Yankee, the Real America/Heartland crap and his questionable portrayals of history and his associations with people like David Barton.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            There was a clear shift when he appeared to be concerned about major issues like debt, monetary policy and the longevity of the country. He got much more serious. I think this about the same time he republished Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”.

            One thing about Beck is he is hard on GOP and Dems. He was pretty hard on Bush too.

          • Ray in VT

            And I have seen him be serious, although I find his, to my point of view, rather self important role in promoting (his version of) history to be a bit galling and more than a bit off in terms of his factual accuracy. I don’t much care for his grand stage shows and such.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            He is particularly hard on Woodrow Wilson. IMHO, rightfully so. But I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you.

          • Ray in VT

            There’s plenty of things to criticize Wilson for, such as segregation of the federal workforce, but that it not surprising considering that he was the most conservative, at least socially I guess, of the three major candidates in 1912. On the other hand he was on the right track in terms of self determination of peoples, although he applied that only to peoples in Europe, and the idea of international cooperation through some sort of body did and does have some upsides, even if they’re trying to steal our freedoms with their Agenda 21. On the other other hand, civil rights abuses were pretty severe after we went to war in 1917, and while some of that got better after the war ended, there continued to be some pretty blatant abuses through Harding’s time in office.

          • fun bobby

            sounds like you have watched the fox show and not listened to the radio show much

          • Ray in VT

            I’ve picked up a bit from both, and I just don’t care for the schtick.

          • fun bobby

            one of my favorite was when he used to play clips from obomas book on tape and just let them speak for themselves. he also has a bunch of bush quotes he plays from time to time. “just because someone is poor doesn’t necessarily mean they are a killer”

          • fun bobby

            todays conspiracy theory is tomorrows history

          • Ray in VT

            No, if it is a conspiracy theory that does not play out, then it remains a conspiracy theory, and some will believe it no matter what. There are real conspiracies, but I don’t see any evidence that FEMA is building concentration camps. I think that such talks appeals to a certain fringe element, and I do not care for such things.

          • fun bobby

            what about all the concentration camps they are building? what kind of prison has a playground?

          • Ray in VT

            I know, right? They were way better when they were surrounded by gators and we made them split rocks.

          • fun bobby

            time will tell. it would not be the first time americans in America were forced into concentration camps

          • Ray in VT

            That is true. For instance there are still nuts that want to round people up. I believe that Michelle Malkin promoted it for Muslims and there was some pastor who wanted to do it with the gays and lesbians. Ultimately, I think that the likelihood is pretty slim, and I don’t exactly think that some joker like Beck has the inside line on much of anything that isn’t out there for the public to know.

          • fun bobby

            he was the only media figure I know off who told a plausible story about bengazi. it was months before any other media acknowledged the CIA connection. the facts where right there but no one else reported on them. the media left and right lies to us constantly often by omission. then you have oboma two weeks later still claiming “the video made them do it” lie. he is a comedian. consider though that comedy is telling uncomfortable truths

          • Ray in VT

            I thought that one had to be a funny to be a comedian. I think that it is more of a farce.

            I put little faith in his expert opinion, and I’m willing to give what I think is a decent amount of leeway during a confused situation such as the Benghazi attack. I like how he really nailed the Arab Spring in Cairo: an alliance of Islamic Jihadists and international Communists uniting to destroy capitalism. Great insights there.

          • fun bobby

            it does seem like the Russians are pretty heavily involved in Syria for example. those oboma/ bush clips are pretty funny. if you changed the term capitalism to American/”western” influence would you still think that was an outlandish assessment? the puppet dictators they threw out were ours right?
            he does not put much faith in his expert opinion. he did a whole show where he referred to himself as a radio clown. its a comedy show. sometimes his commentary is way off base but sometimes he is right on. sometimes he seems way off base but it turns out later he was right on. i started listening because npr was repeating itself one day and I had seen becks tv show and thought he was an idiot. now, I just listen because it makes me laugh

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, but the Russians are hardly communists these days, and they’re propping up a secular dictatorship in Syria, which makes the whole thing a bit of a mess because if one thinks that Assad has to go, then who is going to replace him? It would probably need to be some sort of Islamist group. Of course, Turkey’s leading party could be called Islamist, in a sense, and it more or less works in a somewhat open society, although they sometimes crack down on writers and journalists. Still, it’s more in line with the West than with other states in the Muslim world.

            I just don’t see the appeal in shows like Beck or others. I have occasionally listened to some of them, and I haven’t found them to be informative or entertaining.

          • fun bobby

            becks show is pretty different from most right wing media. its actually funny for one that’s how you know its not a republican thing

          • Ray in VT

            Plus I really liked how he labelled that Saudi student that the FBI talked to a part of the Boston bombing. Some really nice work there, plus the bang up job he’s done with his Tides Foundation rants.

          • fun bobby

            all the media reported that. you hold him to a higher standard than nbc? I missed the tides foundation rants I have not listened for a while what’s that about?

          • Ray in VT

            I recall the media reporting on the student, but I do not recall them labeling him as a “very bad man” or something for days following the FBI saying that he was not considered to be a suspect or a person of interest, as Beck did. Tides is supposedly a part of some great conspiracy to do something nefarious to us all. It’s all very hush hush of course. I think that a lot of it was back in 2010 maybe.

          • fun bobby

            shame on him for repeating what the FBI had said. if he was saying that after the fbi changed their story is that worse than oboma repeating “the video made them do it” lie 2 weeks after everyone knew that was a complete fabrication?
            I don’t believe much of what I hear regardless of the source.
            I recall the media reporting that an associate of the marathon bombers was shot while unarmed by an fbi agent in florida. that was the last I heard about that have you heard anything?
            you would think an unarmed man being shot in florida was a big deal but for some reason the media has not said anything to follow up on this. we don’t even know if the agent was a white Hispanic or not.
            is glen the best fact checker or most credible reporter of news? no, clearly, but these days who is? (I seem to remember a major news outlet editing a tape to make it sound like the speaker was a racist, recently)
            is it a funny entertaining show? it makes me laugh
            does he provide insightful critiques of bush and oboma? sometimes
            are there sinister conspiracies to do stuff to all of us? yup and thanks to snowden we can now prove it. but otherwise wouldn’t that all fall into the whacky conspiracy theory category?

          • fun bobby

            the fox show is nothing like the radio show. he repudiates it himself

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’ll confess I haven’t listened to Beck since they took it off the local market.

          • fun bobby

            its pretty funny. he was also the only place that told the real story about bengazi right when it happened.

          • AC

            someone else called me that today on here. it made me a little sad, but what the heck? life moved on….

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, I wasn’t calling you that, so please don’t take it that way. I was referring to one Mr. Glenn Beck. One of the fine nut jobs from talk radio/Fox News (formerly)/the Internet.

          • skelly74

            Don’t be sad…i actually like your comments…even though you think mine are creepy..

          • AC

            lol. it was that molest-y sounding ‘daddy blows on your boo-boo’ or whatever it said!!

          • jefe68

            I second that. No he’s a tool and a half.

          • brettearle

            He’s a Stool and a half.

          • jefe68

            OK a stool tool and 3/4…

        • WorriedfortheCountry
          • AC

            o yes. i thought this person disappeared? he turned out to do something/be embarrassing so Fox fired him or something happened and no one liked him anymore….

          • fun bobby

            is that what happened?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I never heard of any ‘incident’. Maybe it was ratings? Fox replaced him with “The Five” which is doing very well.

            On his part, I believe he wanted to form his own media company and that is what he did — The Blaze.

          • HonestDebate1

            He turned down the offer to start his media empire and is quite successful.

        • fun bobby

          a self described radio clown

        • HonestDebate1

          A Bush hating man who feeds the homeless.

      • HonestDebate1

        Not really, he kind of creeps me out.

  • skelly74

    Wow. It’s scary when we have a “politician” who actually reveals his true concerns and intentions about the terrifying realities we face. The personality cult demands that someone will blow on their wounds and tell them everything will be ok…just like daddy used to do.

    • AC

      ….i think this wins the ‘creepiest comment i’ve ever read on here’ award….o_O

      • skelly74

        Oh..good for me, I won an award…see winning is good…thanks AC:)

  • homebuilding

    I was thinking that R Paul had a few reasonable things to say, but then his summary statement was about cutting everything, especially Medicare and Social Security–while leaving a strong military.

    Pax Americana, no thank you. We already spend ten to twenty times (per capita) what the rest of the world spends. There is NO BETTER PLACE TO CUT than the bloated military industrial complex

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Hopefully, we can cut the military and still have a strong military. The world is still a scary place but we have to be smarter. There are many places to cut but we have to also get some robust growth into the economy via regulatory and tax reform.

    • thequietkid10

      I didn’t catch how exactly he framed it his statement, but cutting military spending and maintaining a strong military are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Especially due to the size of our military.

    • OnPointComments

      There is NO BETTER PLACE TO CUT than the bloated military industrial complex, said many members of Congress, just not in my district.

  • thequietkid10

    While I support Libertarianism, and the “are you a racist” line of questioning is bullshit, Rand has GOT to handle himself better then that.

    His response should have been, “my connections with neo Confederates are no more proof of my racism, then President Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers is proof that he is a terrorist. Period, next question.”

    • brettearle

      It’s a compelling point. But it’s a sound byte.

      If Obama had to explain his association to Bill Ayers [and if the President didn't, he should have], then anyone, running for major office, or holding a major office, has to explain his own associations.

      Period, next question.

    • Bruce94

      I wasn’t aware that Ayers was ever hired by Obama to serve on his Senate staff. Or that Ayers still espoused his radical ideas into his mid-30′s as Jack Hunter has. Or that Ayers co-authored a book with Obama in 2009. This in no way should be construed as a defense of Ayer’s tactics or ideology in opposition to the Vietnam War, but your false equivalence is stunning.

      • thequietkid10

        That is a ridiculous train of though. Your trying to pass off Ayers relationship with Obama as if it was as if they were once at the same cocktail party. It’s about as childish and absurd an argument as “at least Rand Paul didn’t start his political career in Jack Hunter’s living room”

        • Bruce94

          As absurd as implicitly conflating the Weathermen and the Confederacy?

  • Michiganjf

    Research? Look in the mirror!

    Do you really think a freshman putz in the HOUSE, who SOMETIMES bucks party leadership, is actually “on more committees than ANY other current congressman???!!!”

    Try again!

  • kentchris

    Rand Quixote along with his father Ron Quixote have created a perfect stage upon which they can wax eloquently about freedom and liberty and how government reduces and limits our freedom and liberty without ever being responsible for the hard work of actually running the government and balancing all the conflicting interests.

    • skelly74

      Nice..touché

    • brettearle

      Let’s consider some examples. What are some examples, would you say?

      So that we can better expose the guy.

      • kentchris

        A pair of bootstraps is a great thing to have but there is no liberty or freedom if you don’t have a job or means of support. Self reliance is a great personal attribute but when economies falter as they always do, to expect everyone to just tough it out without the government (fellow citizens) stepping in to provide relief is naive.

        • fun bobby

          I heard it was just another word for nothing left to loose

    • fun bobby

      then lets elect them. that will show them right?

    • Dave Lister

      If you want to tell women what they can and can’t do with their bodies
      and the rights to reproductive freedom, you are NOT really a Libertarian.

      • HonestDebate1

        Democrats tell women they can’t be prostitutes. They tell them they can’t ingest certain drugs. Is that what you mean?

  • hypocracy1

    Just what we needed.. another Paul claiming to be Libertarian but running as a Republican to say in congress and get rich.

    • Bruce94

      Right, if Paul had the courage of his convictions, he would run as a third-party candidate instead of using his “Mr. Tea Party Goes to Washington” shtick to delay, posture, pander and obstruct every bi-partisan effort to get things done for the benefit of the country including his own hoodwinked constituents back home (e.g. listen to yesterday’s discussion of resistance to the implementation of the ACA and Medicaid Expansion in Tea Party-dominated state legislatures).

    • joepeeler

      How is Dr. Paul (either one) not libertarian? I guess you could point to their abortion position, but even there they are constitutionalists in that they don’t think it is a federal issue.

      • skrekk

        To start with he doesn’t support equal rights for all Americans. Both Ron and Rand Paul are actually neoconfederates, not libertarians.

        In their view, states rights trump civil rights.

  • jefe68

    Define protecting citizens from a libertarian view point. Doe this mean taxing enough to have well trained police and fire departments? Sanitation departments and health departments?
    Who pays for the courts?
    What about infrastructure?

  • tbphkm33

    At the end of the day, the GOP is still a minority party that panders too much to its extremist wings. Giving rise to the quote, “give them enough rope, they will hang themselves.”

    The reality is that the majority of voters are centralists and, on Main Street, there is not great difference between the two political flavors of Republicans and Democrats. Beyond the fringes of either party, there is not an insurmountable rubicon between those to identify with one party or the other. The hangup comes with the radical single issue voters who are unwilling to go outside the confines of a singular vision. On both sides, minority extremist groups.

    What is desperately needed is elected officials that understand government and governance. That understand the fundamental that at the end-of-the-day, one has to compromise. It is not healthy for one side or the other to get all their wishes. That the dysfunctional Congress is borne out of elected individuals who do not have a grasp of what it means to govern. Their ignorance comes at the peril of their constituents who placed them in office and the nation as a whole.

    The “libertarians” are more of an extremist group than a main stream force. They do have some valid points, but a number of their planks are impractical and some bordering on insanity. Not to mention, many individuals on the street that identify themselves as “libertarian” have no clue what being a libertarian actually means. It has gotten to be a badge that is grasped onto by some fringe groups seeking a larger identity.

  • jimino

    Here’s the one question, central to their world view, that I wish would have been asked of Paul, Boaz, and anyone else who claims to be a libertarian:

    What do you intend to do to assure that the full costs associated with some economic activity (e.g. military spending to protect access to and transportation of petroleum; effects of pollution from burning oil and coal; risks of systemic economic failure due to actions of large actors) are internalized by the market. And tell us what you have done already to accomplish this.

    • joepeeler

      “Systemic failure due to large actors.” That was always b.s.
      The housing bubble was a direct consequence of Federal Reserve’s rigged interest rate grid and cheap money policy. Govt. subsidies and guarantees added fuel to the fire. Large banks held assets that collapsed. Some connected firms like Goldman then tried to unload those assets before the Fed-created bubble burst.
      The proper course of action was to let some of the large banks fail. Their assets would have been sold at market rates. Others would then manage those assets. It wouldn’t have been the end of the war. A simliar thing happened in 1921. They allowed debt to be liquidated. Firms failed. It wasa big crash, but it was over in 18-months.
      As far as pollution, that can be handled in the courts and by jury awards. Govt. bureaucracies are corrupt and oftentimes captured. Regulation by bureaucrat isn’t very effective.

    • Seamus Reilly

      Military spending- Symptomatic of the warfare state.
      Environmental Concerns- If you refuse to talk about what our government has done to the environment, through bureaucratic waste, promotion of waste and over consumption through subsidies, promotion of two working parents through debasement of the currency, subsidized insurance and protectionism causing prices to rise so as to need two vehicles, enormous amounts of energy used to fuel foreign occupation, defense research and space exploration, construction of interstate highways, and construction of lavish buildings with no purpose except for the aesthetic enjoyment of the ruling class then you are not talking about much of anything. Bottom line, if you care about the environment then government should be your mortal enemy.

      Economic failures due to action of large actors- like government granted monopoly power over the creation and regulation of means of exchange? Two words…
      Reply if you figure them out.

  • Michiganjf

    Glad to know you think comparing someone to “Rick Perry” is equivalent to calling someone a four-lettered epithet!
    It gives me an infinitesimal bit more faith in conservatives’ discretion.

  • MsAbila

    The libertarians are wolves in sheep skin and mostly just a spin on the republican pro-multi-corporation and pro-big money tendencies.

    You may believe in libertarianism only if you have established wealth. Their ideology of ‘free will’, ‘freedom’, ‘free markets’, ‘reduced states’ (this in particular means cutting programs such as soc sec) is oppressive to the non-wealthy citizens.

    I haven’t heard a single libertarian discuss the DETAILS of their concepts for running the country. Increasing/not increasing military budgets and decreasing and stopping social programs do not constitute details. They forget to discuss the ‘how’ of their programs. Throwing around ‘labels’ is not sufficient.

    Libertarianism is a non-progressive ideology as it’s being presented to us in the media.

    • joepeeler

      “Free will, freedom, free markets and small government are threats to non-wealthy?” Oh, puh-leeeze.
      The current structure was largely set up during Progressive, New Deal and Great Society eras. That’s the threat to you.
      It was progressive who sought to “tie the needs to the state to business” back in the early 20th century. Well, that will always result in corporatism, which is collusion of state and business.
      In truth, proggies love corporatism. They love mandates, subsidies, public-private partnerships, collectivized risk, govt. guarantees, state-sanctioned cartels (see Federal Reserve), and other corporatism measures so long as they are done in the name of progressive ends.
      Your progressive ancestors set this system up. Their progeny have done nothing but complain about it ever since.
      Rand Paul is a breath of fresh air.

      • hypocracy1

        sounds like the same hot air his dad was blowing..

      • jefe68

        What a load of twisted hogwash. Trying to tie progressives to the corporations.
        You attack the very things that helped people enter the middle classes. Libertarians seem to me to be nothing short of social Darwinist.

        • Seamus Reilly

          That’s because you haven’t really heard our philosophy. We DO NOT believe in social Darwinism. We believe that the only thing that state granted special privilege can do is concentrate wealth. We believe that market interventionism is that privilege and that it is used by big corporations to suck up market share through protectionism, over regulation and state granted monopoly powers. We believe that minimum wage laws were never a means to pull people out of poverty but a tool used by the unions to keep under skilled people out of the work force and essentially keep them in poverty. You may not agree but please don’t misunderstand our premise. We do want everyone to benefit from free markets and we want this corporatism out of here because its interventionist by nature. As for grouping proggies in with the corporatism, let’s look at it like this. Who benefits from obamacare. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc… Who suffers? Small business, the average tax payer, the work force, etc…

          Why was it written the way it was? Because big business lobbied to make money. It’s the same with education. Who does most of the lobbying for financial assistance? Universities. Not students. Universities lobby for more access to loans and then raise their prices.

        • 1Brett1

          Come on, jefe, the working man did so much better during the robber baron age. It was the New Deal, and Great Society programs that put chains on the middle class…(I couldn’t even type that with a straight face!)

    • fun bobby

      “as it’s being presented to us in the media.” that’s really all you had to say

    • Anthony_Agorist

      Most libertarians would compromise on Social Security because the people that are going to draw from Soc Security are those whom paid into it all of their lives and deserve to get a return on that investment.

      Our alternative plan is to allow people to opt out of social security so they can use that money towards more flexible investments in their future.

      This can only work if we reduce government spending, mostly overseas, and invest some of what is being saved into the social security trust.

      From there, we can ween people off government sponsored welfare and encourage independent investing, which will also increase the quality of life of every citizen because now their money is going to productive parts of society and not a debt-ridden program that is statistically going to fail within a few decades (at this rate).

      Lets face it, the social security trust is going bankrupt due to mismanagement. My generation is predicted to not even have social once we get to that age. Let people at least have the option to opt out.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        At least there’s something Republicans and Libertarians are in agreement on: More happy horsecrap about SocSec GOingBankrupt!!11one!

  • Don_B1

    The fact that hillary Clinton voted to support Bush’s attack on Iraq was the biggest reason she lost in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. What support they provide for the other items on your list is highly qualified, more so than the unconditional support by mainline Republicans.

  • Xori624

    Not very funny, actually.

    One pertains to the government, the other to private citizens.

    The government must treat everyone equally, that is a criteria for justice.

    But you and I can choose to treat people differently. That is a criteria for freedom.

    • geraldfnord

      …because there is infinite space in which to open Woolworth’s, and it is easy to open up Woolworth’s, and Woolworth’s get no protection from the State (for their property against theft and fraud, from their creditors via limited liability and the threat of discharging a debt via bankruptcy, by the threat of violence to enforce contracts made by Woolworth’s even if such were repellent due to the power imbalance in their making, by the ability to own much more than would be generally possible in the state of Nature), which State is supported by all citizens of all races via their taxes, military service, and simple belief (the State is like the “Monty Python’s flying Circus” sketch in which a block of flats were held up by mass-hypnosis—this is not to denigrate the State as such, since such is also how Morality and Justice ‘exist’).

      What you do in your home is one thing, and I am actually sympathetic to people doing business without the State’s privilege of limited liability’s doing what they will…but what you do as a person using an entity that could not exist and function without a State is another thing.

  • pm05

    Why won’t Rand say anymore about his buddy and “ex” staffer!! Says a lot – he doesn’t do himself any good by trying to ignore that he has such a connection with his buddy!!

    • fun bobby

      what does it have to do with his policy positions?

    • PJ McFlur

      Its a made up by MSNBC non-story just meant to attack Rand. Thats why he put this dude in his place.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Modern liberalism is based on the flawed belief that the State — run by the elites — is great. If the elites were good, liberal utopianism would be spectacular. Alas, Statism will always be destined for failure.

  • Don_B1

    And when you really look at how cutting spending by everyone just cuts everyone’s income, which subsequently cuts spending further. So the economy is in deeper trouble after following that path:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html

  • More Liberty

    Wrong. They believe that the government should not be involved in deciding who and who shouldn’t get married as long as all individuals are adults. Only adults can enter into contracts.

  • Seamus Reilly

    What service does taking your money provide? How does making the tax code neutral inhibit the government from taking your money?
    I am a libertarian. I believe that marriage is a religious institution. I believe that if your church is willing to let you marry that is none of my business.
    My church doesn’t not allow gays to marry. I am not upset at them. I am not upset that some churches do. The government should not have anything to do with marriage. And to address your BS point about Rosa parks, telling someone they are not allowed to sit somewhere, and treating people like individuals under the law? I don’t see how you draw a parallel.
    What Rand is saying is that people shouldn’t be given special breaks because they are married. People shouldn’t be given SPECIAL anything! That’s equality my dear, misinformed, and utterly incompetent friend.
    Equality = When nobody is treated better than anybody else by the legal monopoly of violence and force.

  • Seamus Reilly

    I am just curious. Why do you say he is a bigot?

  • satta

    What the Pauls (and many libertarians) would prefer is for the state to have no authority over marriage whatsoever, for individuals to be allowed to engage in any mutually agreeable contract that they please, and for married people to receive no special privileges or penalties from the state.

    As an interim step, the Paul’s believe that decentralizing authority over marriage is preferable to a monolithic definition of marriage prescribed by the federal government. Others feel that as long as the federal government is involved, it should expand marriage to accommodate same-sex couples (as well as plural marriages, btw).

    People who support personal liberty recognize that government uses marriage to exploit and control. We do not want, nor need the institution of marriage defined or managed by government.

    • skrekk

      So….gays can only get equal legal rights AFTER the government stops regulating marriage? That makes zero sense.

      In fact what both Ron and Rand Paul believe is that a state has the right to deny the civil rights of certain disfavored minorities. Ron Paul’s “We the People Act” speaks for itself:

      **********
      thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:

      The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–

      (1) shall not adjudicate–

      (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

      (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

      (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

      (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
      **********

      In other words, women have no right to reproductive privacy, gays have no right to sexual privacy, gays cannot claim an equal protection violation when they’re denied the right to marry, and the states are free to enact laws based on religion and to deny religious freedom.

      And key precedents like Griswold v CT and Lawrence v TX cannot be cited as precedent by the courts.

    • skrekk

      Ummmmmm…….neither Ron nor Rand have ever offered any legislation to make the “state have no authority over marriage whatsoever”. All they’ve ever done is offer legislation to deny gay Americans access to marriage, or to deny gays the ability to challenge certain Jim Crow laws.

      Sounds like you’re rather naive about where the Pauls are really coming from. It also sounds like you’re naive about the fact that marriage is a property rights agreement and thus will always be regulated by the state.

      Also very funny that you think gays need to wait to be treated equally under the law until the state gets out of the marriage biz…..would you have said the same thing to Rosa Parks?

      I suggest you read Ron Paul’s odious “We the People Act” and his equally bigoted “Marriage Protection Act”. You should educate yourself so that you know where the Pauls are really coming from. Neither man is a true defender of personal liberty, they’re both really defenders of Christofascism.

      • satta

        Just a few points. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have a common philosophical background, but they are not interchangeable and should not be conflated.

        As a congressman, Ron Paul sometimes introduced provocative legislation that would spur discussion about the nature of the federal government and its role in a free society. His view that the federal government should exercise only the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and that all other powers be reserved by the people and the states, is consistent with a libertarian sentiment of smaller, decentralized government. Ron Paul has claimed all along that much of what the federal government does is beyond its charter. Arguing for the restriction and/or the dismantling of the highest tier of government power is also consistent with a libertarian philosophy. This does not mean that we approve of what state and local governments do, but our solution to those problems is not to bury them under additional layers of coercion and exploitative machinery.

        I had hoped, and continue to hope that oppressed minorities, like the LGBT community, will see the irony of supplicating themselves to the very institution that has oppressed them, and instead of settling for a few crumbs from the table of the ruling elite, work to undermine and neutralize these oppressive institutions until all people are free to live their lives as they please: in peace and voluntary cooperation, without the specter of state-sanctioned violence hanging over their heads. Asking for the state to exploit and oppress us equally is not really moving society in the direction consistent with libertarian principles.

        Property rights are central to a free society, yes, but government’s role – if any – with regard to property rights should be limited to the enforcement of contracts and resolution of disputes. Marriage should be part and parcel to whatever voluntary contract the married parties care to engage in, and otherwise none of government’s business.

        There is no “right” to same-sex marriage anywhere in the Constitution, and making one up would simply expand the power of the federal government and further dilute the restrictions on federal power that are the focus of much of the Constitution as written. I can certainly understand why libertarians are against this.

        I believe that Ron Paul’s provocative proposals belie his Rothbardian background and his disdain for government in general. His “constitutional conservative” stance is a device of convenience, as it permits him to argue for less government without advocating pure anarcho-capitalism, which is much too foreign and progressive a concept for the average American. It is too soon to tell where Rand Paul comes down on all of this, but he is certainly influenced by the same ideas as his father.

        So, where you accuse xenophobia, bigotry, and prejudice, whether you are sincere or simply trying to discredit the Pauls and libertarians in general, we see a healthy fear and dislike of the state – which it has well earned over the centuries – and a hope for a truly free society based on individual liberty and voluntarism.

        The answer to exploitative and discriminatory government marriage is not more government marriage, even if it appears on the surface to improve things.

        • skrekk

          >>>>As a congressman, Ron Paul sometimes introduced provocative legislation that would spur discussion about the nature of the federal government and its role in a free society.

          Yeah…..that explains why he said he would have voted for DOMA if he could, why he said DADT was “good policy”, why he authored a bill to deny gays equal protection, restore theocracy to the states, and gut all protections for sexual privacy. It also explains why he authored a bill to prevent any challenges to DOMA…….because he “likes to introduce provocative legislation”.

          >>>There is no “right” to same-sex marriage anywhere in the Constitution

          Sounds like you’re unfamiliar with the 14th Amendment. That’s why you bigots keep losing on this issue in court.

          >>>>So, where you accuse xenophobia, bigotry, and prejudice, whether you are sincere or simply trying to discredit the Pauls and libertarians in general, we see a healthy fear and dislike of the state

          Right……because wanting the state to treat some citizens as 2nd-class and authoring bigoted laws to specifically target that class merely proves that you have “a healthy fear and dislike of the state”.

          Seriously, do you think anyone is so gullible as to believe that nonsense? A sane person would view the policies and actions of both Pauls as those of bigoted Christofascists, not advocates of personal liberty.

          • satta

            With all due respect, most of Paul’s proposals have been designed to undermine federal authority. Your critique is misguided and mis-characterizes the underlying motivations. You can read Paul himself, or his influences: Mises, Rothbard, Woods, Hayek, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Nock, and the rest if you’re not convinced by me. This is not some elaborate ruse to perpetuate white supremacy or national socialism on an unsuspecting populous.

            The state is the enemy of libertarians and anarchists, not black people or gay people. I think progressives find this idea sufficiently repugnant without having to attribute motivations that do not exist, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • skrekk

            So, your theory is that a supposed “defender of personal liberty and an opponent of federal power and opponent of waste in the government”, tries to prove a hypothetical point by repeatedly submitting truly odious legislation that he secretly doesn’t want passed?

            And when he said he would have voted for DOMA and thought DADT was “good policy”, he was simply lying?

            You’re either a gullible moron or you think everyone else is.

          • satta

            Yes, that’s my theory, based on pretty thorough research.

            Paul’s legislation was not motivated by prejudice against minorities, but rather by a disdain for the corruption and oppression of state power. While he would have liked his bills to become law, he knew they had little chance of passing. He introduced them anyway in order to spur discussion and expose the deceit, excess, greed, and hypocrisy of the Washington establishment.

            Your accusations, on the other hand, seem to be based on the most superficial impressions made out of context.

            Ron Paul spoke out against DADT on several occasions, citing it as an example of collectivism, and instead suggested that individuals be judged on their own merits, and not some group label. He also voted in Congress for the repeal of DADT.

            He defended Section 2 of DOMA (the part still in force that prohibits federal judiciary from forcing states to honor each other’s SSM legislation) based on his view that the federal government has no authority to legislate marriage, and that these matters should reside with the states.

            I don’t really understand how Paul’s stance on DADT supports your position, but on DOMA, yes, Paul’s position is motivated by his belief in the restraint of federal authority to constitutionally enumerated powers. He has spoken and written extensively on his rationale.

          • skrekk

            You’re completely wrong about Paul’s position on DADT – he said it was “good policy” until just a few months before it was repealed in 2010, at which time the vote outcome in Congress was obvious. Only then did he switch his public position about it. It’s also clear the old bigot was so clueless that he didn’t understand that DADT only impacted gays: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/ron-paul-reversal-dadt

            And on DOMA he wrote the effing “Marriage Protection Act”, which denied the 5th Amendment rights of gays to challenge that Jim Crow law. He even said he would have voted for DOMA.

            FYI, section 2 is irrelevant since no state has ever been forced under Full Faith and Credit to recognize an out of state marriage which violates its statutes. Section 2 was just to appease gullible bigots like Ron Paul and his followers.

            And to top it off he wrote the “We the People Act”. I’ve never seen worse legislation, or legislation so directly targeted to harm women and a disfavored minority. We’re very lucky Ron is no longer in office.

          • satta

            Here’s what he said on one occasion about DADT. Read the whole thing.

            He voted to repeal it twice, btw.

            “I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality. It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”

            On DOMA, it appears that not everybody was as nonplussed regarding SCOTUS’ ability to edict SSM interstate via FF&C.

            “When it appeared that Hawaii was recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages, Congress responded with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (28 U.S.C. § 1738c). DOMA enables each state to refuse to recognize other states’ acts, records, and judicial proceedings purporting to validate same-sex marriages. Moreover, the Act specifically enables each state to deny rights and claims arising from same-sex marriages created in other states. These congressional acts presumably work to displace Supreme Court Full Faith and Credit Clause precedent in these areas.”

          • skrekk

            Ummmm……those are the comments I linked to above. Sounds like you’re one of the more gullible of Ron Paul supporters and don’t understand what’s he actually saying. That’s rather typical of his followers.

            First, he only changed his position in May 2010, a few months before DADT was repealed. Prior to that he fully supported it.

            Second, he seems to think that DADT applies equally to both gays and straights……what an effing moron he is! You’d have to be either truly naive or willfully ignorant to be unaware that straights weren’t impacted at all by DADT. No straight soldier feared that they’d lose their job just because some ignorant bigot discovered they were straight. Ron Paul is either a moron, or he realizes his followers are. The only way that DADT impacted straights at all was to worsen the problem of rape and sexual harassment in the military, as straight women were threatened with being outed as gay if they didn’t put out or if they reported a rape.

            And his comments on DOMA reveal a complete ignorance of the “public policy exception” to Full Faith and Credit. They also reveal his view that it’s OK for states to discriminate against their gay citizens. That’s ultimately the bottom line…..he sees no problem with the states and the feds treating gays as 2nd-class citizens.

        • skrekk

          So that’s your explanation for why Ron Paul has repeatedly submitted odious discriminatory bills, because he’s trying to prove how bad government is?

          LOL.

        • skrekk

          >>>>I had hoped, and continue to hope that oppressed minorities, like the
          LGBT community, will see the irony of supplicating themselves to the
          very institution that has oppressed them

          I suspect most gay folks know that Ron Paul is a homophobe and Christofascist who authored laws to suppress their legal rights. Most women know that too.

          And most know that Rand Paul isn’t any better.

          • satta

            And who authored and enforced Jim Crow? Who authored the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII? Who authored the Patriot Act? Who sent us to war in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Kuwait? Who incarcerates hundreds of thousands of people – disproportionately black – for non-violent, victimless “crime”? Who conspires with corporations to siphon the wealth of the middle class and insulate the 1% from market forces? Who spies on us and lies about it?

            And who will protect the next minority from oppression when its antagonist holds the levers of state power? Government?

            Your fear and anger are misplaced.

            Bigots are not a threat unless they have a monopoly on force with which pursue their bigotry against others.

          • skrekk

            >>>>And who authored and enforced Jim Crow?

            Southern conservatives and Southern Baptists exactly like Ron Paul, that’s who. Seriously, who else other than a racist belongs to a cult which was founded to promote slavery and white supremacy?

            Odious discrimination cloaked in the code words of “state’s rights” has always been what his ilk is about. Had he been in Congress a few decades earlier he would have authored the “Jim Crow Protection Act”, in order to allow states to refuse to recognize out of state mixed-race marriages, and to allow the states to deny the civil rights of mixed-race couples.

  • hennorama

    Cheryl – indeed, Sen. Paul is “turning the heads of many voters,” but quite frequently along the lines of a rubbernecking/quizzical reaction, as in “What the …. did he just say?”

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    Tell that to all the Enron and Madoff victims.
    Tell that to all of the folks injured by FenFen.
    Tell that to all the families who have lost a loved one to preventable industrial accidents.
    Tell that to the victims of the fertilizer explosion in West Texas.
    Tell that to all of the folks who have lost their wells and health due to fracking.
    Tell that to all of the folks who lost their jobs, cars, homes or businesses to the BP oil spill.
    Tell that to all the folks who have lost their jobs and homes as a result of the Liars Loans that were collateralized by Wall Street.
    These are the results of greedy, amoral predators who will do anything to make a buck.

    Gross ignorance and irresponsibility is driving us from laws designed to limit the havoc wrought by predators upon individuals and society.

  • jimino

    We seem to have a number of passionate, informed libertarians here today. So perhaps they can tell us: has there ever in the history of the world been a country or similar entity that operated under libertarian principles? Any that came close?

    • fun bobby

      there was one that came close around 1776. here is a small example of what people living free might look like:

      http://freestateproject.org/events/porcfest

      • jimino

        So denying women the vote and slavery are part of a libertarian state?

        • fun bobby

          what do you think? what nations allowed women to vote in 1776?

        • Seamus Reilly

          I just got done complimenting you. I wish you didn’t say that.

          • jimino

            I was wrong to reply that way. fun bobby has a way of bring out the snark in me for some reason.

            The libertarian talk of live and let live rings true for me but I have a hard time grasping the practical implications of its economic principles in our global economy of vastly unequal actors. To be honest, I can’t imagine how it would succeed with what understand as human nature. Knowing where its tenets have actually been tried is important, if it has ever occurred.

          • Seamus Reilly

            But that’s the point we libertarians are trying to make. The state is THE most unequal actor of all. Stefan Molyneux does a great job explaining the opportunity for wealth creation cycle. The only way the inter-generational rich get to hold onto wealth and income is through protectionism(using their wealth as leverage to force legislation, making it illegal for other to compete) Otherwise the kids have no motivation to become entrepreneurs leaving those roles to filled by those children who have something to pull themselves out of. Think about the most effective way that big corporations have eliminated competition, i betcha 9 out of ten times its been through some sort of government intervention.

          • PJ McFlur

            Jim Crow laws… thank the State for those!

            People seem incapable of believing a government that is smaller, will cost us less both in Liberty and dollars.

      • jefe68

        Except for slaves, indentured servants, women and men without property our founding nation was freer in context to the British Empire in the 18th century.

        • fun bobby

          oh jefe? who has gotten closer?

          • jefe68

            Closer to what? Our nation was founded on some sound principles based on new ideas of the Enlightenment. If you knew about the lives of the founders and their wives, I’m thinking Abigail Adams for example, she was an early abolitionist as well as someone who wanted women to have a vote.

          • fun bobby

            so you cant think of anywhere either huh?

    • Ted_Levy

      Tell me, Jimino, would you take it as a serious argument against, say, gay marriage that “has there ever in the history of the world been a country or similar entity that operated” with gay marriage? A century ago, would you have opposed women’s suffrage on the grounds, “has there ever in the history of the world been a country or similar entity that operated” with women having the right to vote? Would you, 300 years ago, favored monarchy against democracy on the basis of an argument “has there ever in the history of the world been a country or similar entity that operated” on a one-man one-vote principle?

      • fun bobby

        i bet he would!

      • jimino

        So the answer is no?

        • Seamus Reilly

          I don’t think ted’s post was helpful in this discussion. I appreciate your openness to ideas.

        • Ted_Levy

          The answer is that you asked a stupid question–not even an original stupid question but a lame repetition of Michael Lind’s stupid question–and you’ve been called on it.

    • Seamus Reilly

      Have you ever heard of Thomas Woods. He does a great job explaining libertarianism in the early history of this country. If you really want to take an objective approach then you should look at statistics. Per Capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality rates, safety standards, and growth of the middle class. Then look into the shrinking of the middle class since economic interventionism took route with market manipulation due to artificially low interest rates created by central monetary planning(read: economic interventionism), then by Keynesian expansion by Roosevelt during the depression(which, for the record, was caused by market speculation due to artificially low rates) and finally Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and creation of the welfare state. If you look at the data, it is absurd to say that, “fair labor laws” and “consumer protection” causes anything but the reverse of the creates expansion of wealth the world had ever seen(read: non-interventionist period between 1776 and 1913). This interpretation also explains the greatest expansion of wealth and the middle class that has ever taken place in recorded history.

      • Ray in VT

        Didn’t Woods say something to the effect that the South was on the side of liberty in the Civil War. Massive economic expansion is much easier to do in land with massive amounts of land that is thinly populated (just so long as one pushed the natives out of the way). Continuing such massive growth becomes more difficult as one closes the frontier and massively increases the size of the population living on the same amount land.

        • Seamus Reilly

          Woods is not a fan of slavery if that’s what you are insinuating. He has written about the civil war and has pointed out the evil nature of the southern cause. He deals with the subject like any objective and honest historian. His main argument against actions of the north and Lincoln are in the lack of authority a government to criminalize secession. Why was it ok for the colonies to secede but not the southern states? If your argument is that those states should not be allowed to hold American citizens in bondage, then it is a noble one, but not the argument the north was making. I personally am glad we had and one the war for the aforementioned reasons, but again this was not the motivation of the union. 650 million acres of the country is owned by the government. Many more are owned by state governments. The biggest reason that we can’t expand economically today is the protectionism that keeps out competition in the form of occupational licensing, minimum wage laws that keep youth and under skilled workers out of the work force, regulations that keep businesses from creating wealth, patent laws that keep innovators from inventing and innovating, spending that sucks up valuable resources to perform functions that by their very nature are valueless, and centrally planned monetary policy that has concentrated wealth in the hands of the finance sector.

        • kentchris

          Ray this was very well put. It is easy to have liberty when you could expand into new territory when ever it gets too crowded, the native population has been subdued and you have slaves of various colors to do the hard work. Once you run out of FREE space and your population swells it becomes harder to be free. Literally. That’s when the hard work of living together within the framework of a functioning representative government starts. The wild wild west has been over for roughly 150 years now and our population has grown by nearly 10 times in that period. We would all be better off if we new and understood this very basic fact.

          • fun bobby

            so there are too many people for us to be free now? that’s a cop out

          • kentchris

            No it’s just reality. Doesn’t mean we can’t be free. But the freedom we have is going to look a lot different than it did in the past.

          • fun bobby

            freedom to choose coke or pepsi? naked scanner or patdown? you can have that future. tell me why I cannot be free and please provide some examples

    • ElRonbo

      Modern day Somalia: practically no taxes or regulation of any kind. It’s a libertarian paradise.

      • Seamus Reilly

        FALSE! Somalia has a corrupt, authoritarian, Federal government.
        Federal Member States: States and regions of Somalia
        Local state governments, officially recognized as Federal Member States, have a degree of autonomy over regional affairs and maintain their own police and security forces. However, they are constitutionally subject to the authority of the Government of the Federal Republic of Somalia. The national parliament is tasked with selecting the ultimate number and boundaries of the Federal Member States within the Federal Republic of Somalia.
        Education in Somalia
        The Ministry of Education is officially responsible for education in Somalia. As of November 2012, the institution is administered under the Ministry of Social Development, led by Maryam Kassim.
        Healthcare
        The Ministry of Health heads the country’s healthcare system. As of November 2012, the institution is administered under the Ministry of Social Development.
        Media
        The federal government has two main media outlets: Radio Mogadishu, the state-run radio station; and Somali National Television, the national television channel.
        Education, Healthcare, And Media. Sounds more socialist than anything else. The reason it is in such turmoil is because of the authoritarian monopoly of violence they call the Government of somalia. As soon as anybody does anything to earn wealth, either the state of somolia takes it, or someone else does with the permission of the state. The somoli state terrorizes its citizens. In 2012 somolia recieved 58 million dollars in US aid of which it only spent 1 million in services. That is not a free society.
        The government is supposed to exist to protect freedoms.

        • ElRonbo

          On paper, there’s quite a lot of government in Somalia. In practice, are you kidding me? Here’s the reality:
          The only real source of money is the ports. The government doesn’t control them, various warlords do. Lower level local thugs set up “checkpoints” every few miles of road to extort money from people passing through.

          That Ministry of Education doesn’t have schools for all the children. The government doesn’t have a monopoly on violence – there are myriad gangs/thugs/warlords.

          Now riddle me this Batman – Somalia is a country awash in guns. Are you one of those that insists guns are essential to protecting liberty and fighting off a tyrannical government? If the government of Somalia is so terrible, terrorizing its citizens as you say, and we know the population is armed to the teeth, how do you reconcile that?

          • Seamus Reilly

            This is a quote from an amazing research project on Somalia. it would be in your best interest, in order to understand the dynamics of Somali politics, to actually do some research. You think Somalia is bad, wait untill the unsustainable nature of the US economy shows its self.
            “Most diplomatic and political initiatives to establish a Somali government frame their concern with reference to the lack of central authority that has existed since January 1991. The problem is, however, at least a decade older than that. The nature of the Somali state in the 1980’s, and specifically the manner in which it controlled ownership of productive resources and markets, and used its power to selectively enrich certain fractions of the mercantile class, is both a historical reality of enduring significance, and also a major determinant of the nature of the ongoing conflict today. If the end result of the process of establishing the TFG and imposing its control on Mogadishu is simply to re-create that same kind of mis-government, Somalia will remain in conflict.”

          • fun bobby

            the guns are not equally distributed.

    • Joben

      yes, it was called the United States of America, before our “leaders” decided to trash the constitution and bill of rights and our form of government devolved into a tyranny. And don’t tell me about slavery – man has enslaved man since the beginning of time, and the American constitutional republic is the only system in history that has ever empowered the people enough to abolish it all together. You think that would have been possible under any other constitution? If we had kept it, as the founding fathers implored us to, we would have had a truly progressive, libertarian, constitutional form of government in America, that gave people the freedom to make their own choices and have a right to life, liberty and prosperity.

      • jimino

        How did the property rights (that seem to play such a prominent role in libertarian philosophy) of the native Americans fit into your story? Did they have any?

        • Joben

          Of course they did. And tyrannical leaders trampled all over them. So what’s your point? That the constitution and the bill of rights are null and void because of atrocities that occurred before they were even written?

          • jimino

            So your philosophy works fine . . . until human beings get involved. Ridiculous! And sad too.

          • Joben

            What? I’m sorry but you are either too ignorant to understand what you are saying, or just trying to win an argument without logic because you think it sounds good. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings, it is true, will become evil, corrupt, tyrannical, when given too much power over others. Just look to the Stanford Prison Experiment for evidence of that. No one is arguing that. In fact, it is for just that reason that the constitution LIMITS the power that our leaders can have, and the bill of rights lists that natural rights that free people have and therefore SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This form of government EMPOWERS the people, so that they have more power than the leaders.

            The problem, however, is that this country is full of people who, like you, think that the infringement of freedom is something that is not worth fighting, or even criticizing on the Internet, apparently. Apologists for the state only give it more power over us. Remember that next time you call someone ridiculous and sad for espousing a philosophy of liberty and freedom FOR THE PEOPLE. Remember that the next time you attempt to make irrelevant straw man arguments as a way of discounting civil liberties, the natural rights of free people.

            By the way, where is all of your moral outrage about the “brown people” that our so-called leaders are currently engaging in the murderous decimation of? Or are you only capable of having empathy for people who were oppressed and genocided 200+ years ago?

  • Ted_Levy

    Harwood seems congenitally incapable of distinguishing programs called for and defended by actual libertarian-oriented Senators actually in Congress and theoretical arguments made by libertarian academics. It’s as if he were interviewing a very liberal Congressman and asked him to defend Marx’s position on something.

  • HonestDebate1

    That’s sick.

  • Bruce94

    In the current environment described in the comment above by Hen where fed. tax revenues as a percent of GDP are at historical lows and US corporations’ effective tax rate is hovering around 12%, the lowest in three decades, AND the total effective tax rate of the top 1% of individual tax payers has dropped 10 points since the 1990′s, the good Doktor Paul’s prescription to grant even more tax relief to the wealthiest and most powerful among us can be seen IMO as yet another example of wealthcare, if not, corporate welfare. I don’t care what you call it, it remains obscene.

    And BTW lumping SS & unemployment compensation (social insurance programs) with welfare is as misleading as it is revealing of right-wing, echo chamber talking point nonsense. However, I do take your point on subsidies that are no less obscene.

  • kentchris

    What would be the penalty for as you put it “put a sharp object through the skull of a baby that can live outside the womb at 25 weeks gestation” would she receive life in prison or the death penalty?

  • HonestDebate1

    I don’t think Libertarians’ foreign policy isolationist bent is practical, especially in a post 9/11 world. I’m not sure exactly where Rand Paul is but I do think he is more sane about it than his dad. And now I read Newt is aligning with Rand Paul on the issue. Interesting.

    • SueAlteza

      “Isolationism” is when government imposes high import tariffs on foreign goods in order stifle competition from abroad. Libertarians advocate a neutral Swiss-style and Jeffersonian foreign policy of “Peace and commerce with no tanging alliances abroad.”

      • ElRonbo

        So if you’re competing with a country that has no environmental standards, which subsidizes certain industries to give them an unfair edge, or which has heinous labor practices, you should just either let them own your markets, or sink your standards to match theirs.

        Thank you for pointing out a central flaw of the libertarian view of global trade.

        • fun bobby

          is that what happened to the swiss?

    • bedr1

      Ha ha, your kidding right? Isolationist? I really don’t want my tax dollars going to some radical Muslim country to create books that includes math problems like the following:

      If you kill ten Jews, out of thirty, how many Jews do you have left to kill?

      Thats an actual math problem in a book you and I paid for, thats not isolationist, it’s just common sense to stay out and quit sending money to this wacko bird foreign policy that aligns Obama with McCain – no thanks.

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree but that wasn’t what I meant.

        I just don’t think we are safe if we check out. That doesn’t necessarily mean military acton. We turned our back on the Iranian people in 2009. We ushered out Mubarek too fast and breathed new (albeit temporary) life into Gaddafi by dallying. When uprisings reach a tipping point it’s already too late. We need to have efforts both overt and covert, including propaganda, aid, security and boots on the ground. We should have long established plants in positions of influence.

        The Arab Spring happened and is happening with or without us. There are nasty factions like the Muslim Brotherhood working hard to fill the voids, if we sit back, they win and nothing gets better. The peril endures.

        • PJ McFlur

          And you are so blind to see that our actions most often come back to bite us?

          Its time to bring our kids home. Defend THIS COUNTRY.

          • HonestDebate1

            Inaction can bite harder.

          • PJ McFlur

            Dude… we have been at war for over a fkn decade.

            I wouldn’t call that inaction.

            You tell me then… When is peace ever going to happen?

            Must we remain at war.. forever?

            Inaction is laughable. The last time we were not engaged was the day before WWII. We have had a hot or cold war ever since. (minus Clinton and he stilled was bombing someone somewhere.)

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t say war.

          • HonestDebate1

            Xori624, I can’t reply to your post because it’s pending moderation… but I can view it. Don’t ask me to explain that logic or what it was about your comment that triggered maceration.

            In the meantime which is also a groovy time, I’ll reply here.

            Don’t stop there:

            Gaddaffi and Pan Am 103: None of our business

            The cleric in Yemen infiltrating the mind of a Muslim at Ft. Hood: None of our business

            Chechnyan radicals training Marathon bombers: None of our business

            The Taliban in Afghanistan pre 9/11: None of our business.

            No, I disagree. We damn well better make it our business because retaliation only happens after the fact. This is my problem with Libertarians.

          • PJ McFlur

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            Sorry buddy. What were the root causes for those terrorist actions?

            Answer that question honestly and peace will arrive sooner than you think.

          • HonestDebate1

            We are infidels and must be killed, that’s it. And if you are going to come back with something to the effect of “it’s our fault, we had it coming”, don’t bother. I have no patience for idiocy.

          • PJ McFlur

            No offense. But your failure at history and propaganda class is your fault.

            I suffer no fools. Fool.

    • fun bobby

      post 9/11 is code for when we began to eschew liberty for the illusion of security?

      • HonestDebate1

        9/11 was when we realized oceans did not protect us. It’s when we realized surveillance laws that were limited to land line phone taps were embarrassingly outmoded. It’s when we realized our enemy was prepared to die to commit mass murder. It’s when we realized it was no longer acceptable to tolerate a despot who violated 17 UN resolutions, shot at our jets, harbored terrorist, swindled the world with the sanctions imposed, attempted to assassinate our President, threatened the world with WMD that he had used in the past, tortured his people and invaded a sovereign nation. It’s when we realized we were at war whether we fought back or not. It’s when we began to understand the whack-a-mole strategy was not working and the only answer was to change the face of the entire Middle East.

        I don’t think we gave up liberty although we did put in place laws that are now being abused to take away our liberty. I like liberty and security. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

        • Duras

          Report after report after 9/11 was when we realized that George Bush exhibited gross incompetence. And now we are dealing with a surveillance state that should not have been had we had a capable president at the time.
          That’s an argument that democrats aren’t making because once again, they are spineless.

          • HonestDebate1

            Wipe the hate out of your eyes.

          • Duras

            How about read a newspaper….

        • fun bobby

          so that was when they pulled the wool over your eyes. I hate to break it to you but that was not the first time bin laden blew up the world trade center. all that you said is propaganda. security is always an illusion and that’s worthless

          • HonestDebate1

            I am well aware of the failed attempt in 1993 and Clinton passing on the offer from the Saudi’s to hand over Bin Laden. 3000 dead makes a bit of difference, ya’ think?

            Tell me one thing I wrote that wasn’t true. Just one. the truth s not propaganda.

          • fun bobby

            nope I don’t think it makes a bit of difference. we defeated the British empire, the Nazis, the soviet union and others without the patriot act or secret courts. these guys are clowns compared to any of them.
            here is one:
            “9/11 was when we realized oceans did not protect us”
            baloney
            its almost as if 9/11 did not happen they would have had to have created it

          • HonestDebate1

            Military tribunals were not invented by Bush. No one fabricated 9/11, it was real. The British empire were British. the Nazis were Germans. The Soviets were Soviets. They all had borders and uniforms. Their allegiances were to country not Allah. 9/11 was seminal event. We disagree.

          • fun bobby

            I never said anyone fabricated 9/11. nor have I mentioned bush.
            “They all had borders and uniforms.”
            thanks for a good laugh before bed. yeah none of those guys ever used any spies or left their own borders. how do you come up with this stuff? your comment about allah just makes me think “crusade”. 9/11 was a minor crisis (whether manufactured or not) that was exploited to the detriment of liberty and peace here and worldwide. you cheapen the sacrifice of the millions who died in the wars we have fought by accepting the desecration of the freedom and American way they fought for.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

  • hennorama

    Completely off topic – Get Well Soon, President Bush.

    • HonestDebate1

      hennorama, notice (as of the post) 4 have clicked dislike. Here’s some of the tweets on the subject:

      http://twitchy.com/2013/08/06/die-btch-george-w-bushs-heart-surgery-brings-out-death-wishes-nastygrams/

      I appreciate your sentiment and thank you for posting but to you and the rest of the liberals around here let this be a wake up call. This is your party.

      • brettearle

        I have no respect for primitive idiots who wish misfortune on their political adversaries.

        • HonestDebate1

          We cannot view the names of the dislikes but I was sure you were not one of them. I should also make clear I don’t think most liberals are this nasty. It is my hope some will rescind the dislike. That would be great.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            The needle-threading you do on this thread is hilarilous.

          • J__o__h__n

            Why can’t we see the dislikes? If the likes are public, the dislikes should be too.

          • brettearle

            When you do not address the second part of my comment, about Ann Coulter–it’s a comment that CAN be verified–then you are NOT engaging in HONEST debate.

          • HonestDebate1

            Whoa there partner, you added the second part after I replied.

          • brettearle

            Not true, AT ALL.

            I DON’T SANDBAG.

            You’re projecting.

            I’ve complained to you, about you doing the very thing that you are accusing me of.

            One other contributor claims you do what I have observed you doing, as well.

            I can barely tolerate that sort of manipulative behavior, when you have done it.

            But I WILL tolerate it nevertheless. Because I am willing to have a civil dialogue with you….I have several reasons for my motivation to keep up a civil dialogue with you.

            But I WILL NOT tolerate that sort of accusation against my own integrity on this thread…..and be accused of the very same thing that 2 people [including me] have claimed you have done.

            If you don’t believe me on this, then we’re through talking with each other.

            I do not appreciate the accusation, one bit.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then it must have been magic. I have no reason to lie. All the comment said when I read it was:

            “I have no respect for primitive idiots who wish misfortune on their political adversaries.”

            Don’t get nasty Brettearle, you know I debate honestly and I know you do too. That was out of line. We don’t agree on much but have always been able to move discourse forward. I’m telling you the truth. And i explained the circumstances where I may change something later like grammar or accidental posting where the change would be within a minute or so. I NEVER change the meaning, intent or facts of a comment without making clear it is an edit but usually I reply to myself instead.

            I did not question your integrity and never have. And I disagree it has anything to do with integrity anyway as long as you don’t change the meaning or hide a factual error without owning up.

            I’ll even point out that in my reply to Hennorama I almost admonished her to take a lesson from you and would have if not for my respect for you. I don’t want o drag you into something you don’t want any part of. I know you and Hennorama agree on much and get on well, it’s not my place to drive a wedge with such a tactic.

            I am telling you what I saw. I do know that I replied almost immediately after you commented, maybe that explains something, I don’t know. I cannot comment on something I did not see and there was NOTHING about Coulter in the comment i replied to.

            Having said all that, I’ll apply a life lesson I learned long ago and apologize. Sometimes it does not matter whether you intend to offend or if you are totally innocent and telling the God’s honest truth. If I offend, I offend even if I am just defending what I wrote or in this case what I did not write regarding Ms. Coulter.

            And BTW, I won’t defend Ann Coulter but I do not know the context or source of her comment. If she advocated death on anyone in particular them she was wrong.

      • hennorama

        1Bonehead Test – three points:

        You put far too much stock in the sentiments of fools expressed on Twitter.

        As you have indicated, you don’t know who clicked [Vote down] in this forum, and therefore have no way to know the political affiliation of anyone. As the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic says – [Your premise is whacked].

        One would likely find similar nastygrams about President Obama any day of the week, and no doubt there were some on his birthday. They are all the same – meaningless drivel, expressed by fools.

        • HonestDebate1

          BS, we know which party they are. Don’t act stupid. And don’t give many any “likely” straw men. If you have examples I’ll condemn them without caveats. Try it, it’s the proper response. This is not about me.

          It’s now up to 5. These are your people.

          • hennorama

            1Bonehead Test – oh right …I forgot about your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view, which turns anecdotal evidence into things “we know.”

            I also forgot your judgmental nature, quick to condemn the slightest of slights.

            Again, you put far too much stock in the sentiments of fools as expressed on Twitter. Getting worked up over them gives them power that far outweighs their significance.

            Perhaps some time in the garden will help calm you.

          • HonestDebate1

            I just finished a big plate of homegrown tomatoes topped with fresh Mozzarella and basil from the herb garden. A little olive oil, sea salt and fresh ground pepper and …. I’m calm, believe me.

            My comment was more directed at the commenters here but you don’t see tweets like this from the right. I am gratified to see the “likes” gained one. We can see their names. They are me, OPC and WFTC. I’ll go out on a limb and speak for the others to say we all would click like to wish Obama well if he had heart surgery. That’s the way we roll. And to your credit you roll that way as well, you just hang with a nasty bunch.

          • hennorama

            Insalata Caprese – a summer classic. There’s nothing like a good tomato, fresh from the garden, still sun-warm, and the youngest, greenest basil, and the creaminess of fresh mozz.

            I’m having grilled salmon, couscous tossed with shredded carrots and a lemon/agave/olive oil dressing, and a big heap of arugula and cherry tomatoes dressed with olive oil and balsamic vinegar.

            Enjoy your evening.

  • kentchris

    I was using fellow citizens and government as the same thing which it pretty much is.
    The government (fellow citizens) pretty much have their hand in everything that we do as a society. That’s the nature of government. The better question is weather governments involvement is reasonable, just and equitable. And when it makes mistakes does it/we correct the mistake.

  • SueAlteza

    “Libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul think they have it…” Rand Paul has stated himself that he is not a libertarian. He and his father are paleoconservatives or “conservatarians”–social conservatives who hold some libertarian views, and not all conservatarians hold the same libertarian positions, including Rand and Ron Paul. The news media does the libertarian movement a disservice when it confuses conservatarians with libertarians.

    • jefe68

      I suppose we should all read more John Locke.
      Locke established the basis of liberal political theory: that people’s rights existed before government; that the purpose of government is to protect personal and property rights; that people may dissolve governments that do not do so; and that representative government is the best form to protect rights.

      The interesting thing is libertarianism was born out of liberalism of the 18th century.

      That said what we call libertarianism today in the US seems to have a spectrum from an anarchism based on the idea of the individual to people like the Rand’s who also profess an ideology that is drawn from libertarianism.

  • Sy2502

    Please can we stop with calling Rand Paul a Libertarian? He is not. He’s a Republican. He’s anti-choice, he supports the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he opposes same sex marriage, and opposes the legalization of marijuana. He is a self described “social conservative” which is the precise opposite of a Libertarian.

    • tbphkm33

      True, true… but this site is today inundated by hoards of Nopublicans that have decided to adopt the mantra of being Libertarian’s. Even if most probably have as little idea of libertarianism as Rand Paul.

      • Seamus Reilly

        HAHAHAHA!
        You’re hilarious!
        AND WRONG!
        It’s quite obvious that you have never heard of Murray Rothbard,, The Non-Aggression Principle, or talked to any real libertarian about the above issues. You can pretend that you did in your rebuttal to this, but unfortunately for you, this particular web page is crawling with libertarians right now, and so you have already shown your hand. Now, as for the Non-Sense spouted by Sy. Pro-Life is not philosophically inconsistent with libertarian-ism. To the contrary, The NAP prohibits aggression to any human being, including an un-born fetus. Now he argument can be made that the child is the aggressor but this can go back and forth. In short, there is no clear cut Libertarian Position on abortion. As for the nonsense about Rand being against marijuana decriminalization, why if he wanted it to be illegal does he advocate for reduced, and eliminated federal mandatory drug sentences. Oh and why did he openly claim that he was against DOMA. Maybe because he is against using government to force people into boxes.

        Rand Paul is Towing the line for sure. He is molding his talking points to appeal to social conservatives, but he is not losing any philosophical consistency,

        Bottom line if YOU were libertarians, you wouldn’t need me to tell you this, because regardless of your opinion of the two good Doctors, you would know it already. You are liberal Trolls, and you have been seen for what you are.

    • Duras

      Yeah. When the NSA fiasco hit, I heard him say, “I wouldn’t want these programs to be in the hands of the wrong presidents.” …As opposed to the right presidents in his mind….
      He’s full of it. And he’s for, like almost all republicans, for there to be a concentration of power to be in the hands of Wall Street CEOs, for their right to reach into your pocket and spy on you.

  • creaker

    Another person who defines libertarianism as the right to keep their money while requiring me to pay for the infrastructure to protect their money.

  • Michiganjf

    Doesn’t he?
    Now there’s the real surprise.

  • Bruce94

    I always chuckle when libertarians argue for States’ rights on the grounds of civil liberties. Why should it matter which state I reside in when it comes to my fundamental rights and civil liberties? Depending on what state I live in, how long should I wait for the evolution of enlightened self-interest, tolerance or moderation to run its course before enjoying equal protection and fair treatment under the laws of that state?

    And as a central figure in our moral evolution once said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — M.L.K. April 16, 1963

    On the other hand, from your post can we infer that you subscribe to the new and improved GOP Southern Strategy as outlined by Lee Atwater in his infamous N-word quote which invokes “states’ rights…cutting taxes…cutting [programs] and all that abstract stuff…a byproduct of which is that blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
    — Lee Atwater July 8, 1981

  • johndubose

    A change of voting to approval would sweep away the corrupt and foolish two party system. Moderates would win most elections.

  • creaker

    Libertarians are basically anarchists who think they are entitled to use other’s peoples money to protect themselves and their property. Which is not all bad – but they’re just another group that wants to dump others benefits and entitlements from government but still force the ones they want.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Don’t they also want to smoke pot?

      • creaker

        Some – real libertarianism is the belief that your wanting to smoke pot is none of their concern.

    • PJ McFlur

      uh… wrong. Try again.

      • creaker

        Not without some info – provide me an alternate definition. Most self labeled “libertarians” I listen to whine about paying their hard earned money into a system they think they are entitled to have protect their money and property.

        • thequietkid10

          Since when did keeping more of the money you earn became an “entitlement”

          • creaker

            It is when you’re expecting someone else to provide law enforcement to protect your money and property – if all that government was let go, I doubt the taxes you saved would cover the cost of you hiring your own protection or dealing with others taking your property.

          • fun bobby

            yeah you always hear libertarians saying they want more cops

          • Duras

            Libertarians enjoy police and fire protection just fine. It’s just that their heads are floating in a different world than the reality that plays out before them.

          • fun bobby

            how did you come to that conclusion? I am not really a libertarian but I think its pretty obvious they do not want a police state by definition.

          • Duras

            We are not talking about Police state, we were talking about police officers patrolling our streets with only public interests (not private interests) in mind.

          • HonestDebate1

            So Libertarians are opposed to law enforcement? That’s news to me. Is it possible you are interpreting smaller government as no government? And by smaller I mean less than the humongous, gargantuan, all-encompasing government we now have.

          • Duras

            Why don’t you read the thread? We clearly said that libertarians enjoy police protection of private property, and fun bobby argued against it.
            What’s your problem?

          • fun bobby

            we don’t need anyone patrolling.

            “A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

            The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.”
            I think we can check most of those boxes. we don’t need to be that way.

          • Shark2007

            What country have you been living in?

          • fun bobby

            we could debate whether the things in the first paragraph apply. is there anything in the second paragraph that does not apply to America 2013?

          • Duras

            Are you telling me that my local police station that writes people speeding tickets and investigates crimes constitutes a police state?
            That’s all liberals are talking about. In fact our justice system – from the police station to the courts – is underfunded. But is homeland security underfunded? Is the military underfunded? These are very different things, but you don’t seem to see the differences from what I suppose is ideological manipulation.

          • fun bobby

            that’s funny have you pinned me as a liberal?

            police checkpoints sound like a pretty obvious salient feature of a police state. secret police are another. secret courts, although not visible, are a hallmark of a repressive police state. I am in favor of cutting DHS 100% and the military expenditures to whatever the minimum cost associated with keeping our weapons of mass destruction secure, our satellites in the sky and a few of our aircraft carriers and coast guard cutters ( although I guess historically the coast guard was a revenue producer for the federal govt) afloat. yeah jack booted thugs all seem the same to me for some reason, I think its the jack boots. it disgusts me that I am forced to spend money on killing off-white people abroad and waging war on them and imprisoning them at home. tell me more about how I have been manipulated and by whom

          • Duras

            I think you need to learn how to read.
            I never called you a liberal or even implicitly suggested such. The first comment that you responded to was only about local police department, to which you erroneously extrapolated a Police State.
            The original comment said that libertarians enjoy the protection of the police. I don’t know why you erroneously inferred Police State. Of course, everybody enjoys the local police department (except black people, but I think they should start trusting and calling upon the police more).
            It is you erroneous inference of a Police State when talking about local police that is your ideological manipulation.

          • fun bobby

            libertarians actually don’t care for the “protection” of the police from what I know of them. if for no other reason than that the police do not exist to protect anyone. that is not their job. I don’t need any jackbooted thugs, local or state or federal. we don’t need any patrols. is that clear?

          • Duras

            When Mitt Romney’s daddy set Mitt up with a stock portfolio in college. I can’t think of a better definition of “entitlement” than that.

        • PJ McFlur

          Libertarians are people that want as little government intrusion into their lives and pocketbooks. They respect civil liberties and the rule of law. They view people as individuals.

          On foreign policy, they want the gov to follow the rules. Congress should debate and declare war. We bombed Yemen today… the govt is running guns to Syria. The senate even blocked Rands measure to stop sending weapons to Egypt. They voted to break their own law.

          On tax policy, they want taxes as low as possible and to keep the fruits of their own labor. Our government is out of control on spending too. Whether its welfare entitlements for people, countries or huge corporations, unfunded future liabilities.. its nuts.

          As a former Dem that volunteered and switched parties for Ron Paul, I would hope this Liberty Movement or Libertarian movement continues to grow.

          Its painfully obvious it doesn’t matter what party is in power. I haven’t seen Obama change any of the bad Bush policies. Whats worse is the left no longer stands for peace or civil liberties. Obama is trashing our Constitution worse than Bush.. and the mindless left abandon any inkling of principle.

          I fear for what is coming. Our economy can’t take much more war or spending.

          • creaker

            Well said – however it really doesn’t cover how you would handle those who would undermine or thwart the society you wish to set up.

            All power structures devolve into oligarchies. Which we’re sadly seeing all too well in the way our current government is operating. I think a libertarian government would devolve into an oligarchy as well.

          • fun bobby

            lets try it and see. we can’t have much worse of an oligarchy than we have now

          • Duras

            Yeah, and it was the rise of neoliberal capitalism during the 1980s that has established the structures of power in America.

          • fun bobby

            yeah right before the 80s there was no oligarchy ROFL

          • Duras

            Well, no democracy is perfect, but politicians did go home and listened to their constituents mainly because politicians weren’t allowed to gain corrupting influences. Seriously, if you think the FDR republic was anywhere near as corrupt the Reaganist era we are currently still in, you need to get your head of the sand.

          • fun bobby

            ever seen citizen kane? how about who framed roger rabbit? teapot dome? the Harrison administration?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

          • skrekk

            >>>>They respect civil liberties and the rule of law.

            I guess that explains why Ron Paul authored legislation to deny the 5th and 14th Amendment rights of gay Americans, because he respects civil liberties so much, eh?

    • fun bobby

      tell me more. how did you come to that conclusion?

      • creaker

        Like any one sentence statement, it’s lacking in detail. Anarchy is the absence of government. Libertarians, though, seem to want just enough government for them and their property and assets to be secure. That seemed to me to be the primary thrust of libertarianism.

        • fun bobby

          it really seemed lacking in accuracy.
          yes that seems like just enough government. what else do you need from the government?.

          • creaker

            Who pays for it? And why socialize it instead of letting everyone figure how to provide for their own security?

          • fun bobby

            who pays for what exactly? there will be taxes(and death for that matter) but we wont need nearly as many once we are not doing so many foolish things. on an individual level a person has a right to bear arms so that they can defend themselves, whose job do you think it is to protect you now? (hint: the police have no legal duty to protect you from anything)
            to defend ourselves from common threats we have militias. I am not sure what you are confused about

  • Jeff

    I understand his concern, but really, let’s not mince words. Social security is utterly incompatible with libertarianism, full stop. I’m not making a value judgement about that, mind you, but merely pointing it out. An individual politician may compromise on various proposals vis-a-vis fixing the program, but that’s a separate point.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Almost everyone I know”

    Yeah, but some people have to put their rubber on the road, because they’re part of government.

    At some point “letting people decide” is a lame way of saying “letting someone else decide on someone’s human rights”.

    And far too many people carry a Bible in one hand and a flag in the other for my comfort.

  • Seamus Reilly

    What was RACIST about what Hunter said. I dont mean what was neo-confederate. I mean what was Racist?

  • Ed Benevides

    Hardwood seemed bent on creating strawman arguments bearing no relationship to Rand Paul’s policies or ad hominem attacks on him. Did Hardwood or the OnPoint staff bother to do any homework before the interview?

    • Paducah72

      All Hardwood did was ask a question and Rand Paul got defensive. Instead of being rude, he could’ve just said,”I refuse to comment on anything related to former staff” or whatever. Rand Paul sounded arrogant and unprofessional towards the end of this interview. He’s going to have to lighten up if he wants to run for president in 2016.

      • Ed

        What if he had asked Paul how many times he beats his wife every day? That’s just a question. I’m not sure why one of his staff members saying something that people perceive as racist (which may or may not in fact be racist) should subject Paul to a question basically insinuating that he’s a racist. Especially since Paul fired him for those comments. Doesn’t Paul’s decision to fire him say more than anything else? Maybe if there was a pattern of at least one other staff member being racist there would be something to pursue. Of course, that may be the case, and I just am not aware of it. But you would think that would have been brought up in the interview if that was so. And he also asked Paul about eliminating SS and Medicare even though that’s never been Paul’s position. That was just a question too. But again, the insinuation is that Paul wants to end those programs. I would argue that Harwood was unprofessional by asking non-policy questions based on the extremes of the Libertarian party and by basically making ad hominem attacks disguised as questions. Would he ask President Obama whether he’ll cheat on his wife because Democrats Weiner and Sptizer cheated on theirs? I remember the first President Bush being offended at being asked if he cheated on his wife. I’m not sure what is wrong with being offended by an offensive question.

        • Paducah72

          Rand Paul could’ve just said he wasn’t going to answer non-policy questions. There’s nothing wrong with being offended, but if he’s a politician, he’s supposed to know how to dodge these questions in a diplomatic way. It’s like when Chris Christie told that teacher to “mind your business” when she asked why he felt it was necessary to cut funding to public schools when he was sending his own kids to private schools. He could’ve said, I would appreciate it if you didn’t bring my kids into this, but instead he sounded like a arrogant tyrant. Rand Paul is in danger of doing the same thing to himself if he doesn’t learn to be more tactful when answering questions he’s uncomfortable with. He is, after all, a public servant and should expect to be questioned by the public – even on issues that he considers offensive.

          • Ed

            I agree all of us can be more tactful in responding to questions. And I agree that may have been the better way to go. But part of the appeal of both Paul and Christie is that they are straight talkers who aren’t overly concerned about alienating people (even in their own party). They don’t typically answer questions by providing talking point answers designed for maximum appeal of targeted demographics. I personally think its refreshing not to hear canned responses from them.

          • JobExperience

            They are sadistic acting fascist poseurs.

        • JobExperience

          Well,, I wondered why the bicep on his right arm was so much larger than on his left…
          Thanks for answering my question.

    • Shark2007

      Unfortunately this is a tact that a lot of public radio talk hosts take. Instead of asking tough questions themselves, the use quotes, statements from others to elicit a response, so as not to seem antagonistic to their guest. He could have burrowed in to how exactly Paul was proposing to save Social Security and Medicare. He could have asked about Paul’s views on the roll of government in worker safety, environmental protection etc. He certainly didn’t press Boaz about environmental protection when a listener brought it up. Telling people to go to the Cato web site is not answering the question.

      • skrekk

        I would have loved to hear Harwood ask if Paul supports the Incorporation Doctrine. That would get at the heart of what’s wrong with his ideology.

        • PJ McFlur

          Do explain… Please.

          • skrekk

            Both Ron and Rand oppose the Incorporation Doctrine, which is a necessary consequence of the 14th Amendment. It’s the reason your state can’t restrict your religious freedom, and why it can no longer be a theocracy:
            http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/

            It’s also why your state’s ban on same-sex marriage will soon fall, and why you have a right to an attorney and a right against self-incrimination. It’s also why your state can’t deny everyone the right to have a gun.

          • PJ McFlur

            It’s the reason your state can’t restrict your religious freedom, and why it can no longer be a theocracy:

            What is wrong with that?

          • skrekk

            >>>>What is wrong with that?

            Ummmm……just that both Pauls oppose it.
            They think the states should be allowed to enact theocratic laws and deny your religious freedom.

            Are you completely unfamiliar with Ron Paul’s “We the People Act”?

          • PJ McFlur

            ‘They think the states should be allowed to enact theocratic laws and deny your religious freedom’

            How clueless you are to their philosophy. States, where law is closest decided to its people, figure out issues like this without a top heavy decision from the Feds.

            While I honestly admire your dedication, I do not believe you understand the Pauls philosophy fully. This is not a personal attack on you. I mean it.

            You appear very passionate on the issues you believe in. As I am too. I personally believe we could find more common ground by debating the principles of issues than we could attacking each other.

            I want America to win. To suggest that the Pauls do not have firm convictions to the principles under which our nation was founded is fallacy.

            I love ya brother. Your passion and earnest is glaring. How do we align?

          • skrekk

            >>>>How clueless you are to their philosophy. States, where law is closest decided to its people, figure out issues like this without a top heavy decision from the Feds.

            Sounds like you never read Ron Paul’s “We the People Act”. It’s very, very clear where both Ron and Rand are coming from – they think the states should be free to violate their citizens civil rights, and free to be theocracies. At their core, neither one believes in the 14th Amendment.

            >>>>To suggest that the Pauls do not have firm convictions to the principles under which our nation was founded is fallacy.

            They obviously both have firm convictions, but they’re the convictions of a neoconfederate.

  • PJ McFlur

    No. Everything I have done since Dec. 16th 2007 tells me everything I need to know about Rand Paul.

    Rand stood for 13 hours to defend our very lives. He wanted an answer to a very direct question.

    Does this administration believe it has the right to kill American citizens without due process?

    If you want to base everything about Rand in one question.. fine. Just don’t act like Rand is some Jim Crow lover. His ACTIONS have proven otherwise.

    • skrekk

      Thanks PJ, but I’ll take a true civil rights defender like Russ Feingold or Ron Wyden any day over a neo-Confederate like Rand Paul.

      Paul seems to think only some Americans deserve full civil rights, and he thinks the states should be free to deny the civil rights of their citizens.

      • Oscar_DeGrouch

        Hate speech.

      • PJ McFlur

        You sure will. You will also take your marching orders from whomever news outlet you adore.

        You are a retired activist or paid staffer.

        That much is obvious. My side didn’t win. Your arrogance is on display here. Even though your side won… I was still a part of the process too.

        If you want a real defender of Liberty in todays America, I would encourage you to link me to anyone that has defended the cause of Liberty like Ron Paul. Ever notice, they call Ron racist? They don’t ever have video or anything he has written himself that could ever link him to racism?

        Think about that. If you think of every single time you heard Ron speak… and compared it with a ‘media blockbuster’… it may strike you pause.

        If not.. keep cheerleading your side to all of our demise.

        At the end of the day. My philosophy includes Accountability. Yours doesn’t.

        • skrekk

          Russ Feingold was certainly a defender of liberty without being a racist or a homophobe like the Pauls.

          Ron Paul has even gone so far as to explicitly oppose the Incorporation Doctrine. Rand seems to express the same neoconfederate views.
          http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/

          • PJ McFlur

            You gotta be a staffer or volunteer. You are trying to ‘out cool’ me! Seriously.

            So to you, Ron and Rand are racist and homophobe?

          • skrekk

            Yes, someone like Ron or Rand who supported DOMA and DADT is definitely a homophobe. And someone like Ron who wrote the “We the People Act” and the “Marriage Protection Act” is not merely a homophobe but a Christofascist.

            Same thing in regards to racism and their opposition to things like the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and public accommodation laws. The fact that both men seem to be blind to the white supremacists who have worked for them is telling, but the fact that white supremacists are attracted to the Paul ideology speaks very, very loudly.

            In fact, Ron Paul has even been endorsed by the KKK: http://www.bilerico.com/2012/01/ron_paul_endorsed_by_former_kkk_leader.php

            The fact that you’re unaware of the bigoted policies of Ron and Rand is rather funny.

          • jefe68

            “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”
            ― Groucho Marx

    • Shark2007

      Ayn Rand Paul was grandstanding. The likelihood that the U.S. would use a drone in the U.S. to kill any one, citizen or not is vanishingly small. In the case of Awlaki, he was in Yeman, waging war against the U.S.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

      • PJ McFlur

        was Awlakis son waging war against us? Were the innocent people that were killed while we killed an American minor waging war against us?

        You sir.. are either a war hawk or chicken hawk. For you to make this argument, you should have served.

        Grandstanding.. no you fool. What was the PRINCIPLE Rand Paul was standing up for?

        Define that and open your mind. Please. Your passion is there but you are not.

        • Shark2007

          So, you think the son would have fared better if a special forces group had one in to make the arrest? Are you equally concerned about the Allied bombing during WWII? Joining a parent on the battle field or in a criminal enterprise has risks for children. I would say the responsibility was Awlaki’s. He could have left is son with his wife.

      • dmllc

        so. he was still protected under the CONSTITUTION.

  • Duras

    Yeah, there is a disconnect to reality when one thinks that businesses are no longer private property because of civil rights legislation. Paul, like most libertarians, need to get real.
    Even J. S. Mill, the intellectual father of libertarianism, eventually realized some people have a responsibility to the rest of society and there is a roll for government.

    • Oscar_DeGrouch

      Role. Not roll. And the role is small.

      • Duras

        Ah, people who can’t think of a counter-argument love to try to discredit via grammatical corrections.
        Thanks, but like I said before, there wasn’t much government before the Great Depression, and for some reason, every body in America seems to be nostalgic for a time when the FDR political economy was well established. But what does history have to say about how big or small the government should be….

        • JobExperience

          Want butter on your role?

      • JobExperience

        Not if you a “shitbug”.

  • skrekk

    Operating on people’s eyes without accreditation and ongoing training can cause blindness.

  • http://www.ingotnews.com/ Ingot News

    These comments show that people just aren’t interested in listening to all sides. They are just stuck in their opinion and are hostile towards anything new and different. I just hope the internet can help spread ideas and help open people’s minds.

    • Duras

      Please, conservatives haven’t presented a new idea since Edmund Burke.

      • HonestDebate1

        There’s been plenty, you just don’t like them.

        • Duras

          Give me one idea, and I bet I can link it to either Hobbs or Burke.

          • HonestDebate1

            Newt making a lunar society.

          • Duras

            The ambitions to colonize the moon evolved from the ambitions to explore the moon, which was generated by the height of American liberalism, JFK.

            Again, give me a conservative idea. Not a big government project to colonize the moon.

            And for the record, I knew Jack Kennedy, and Mr. Gingrich is no Jack Kennedy.

          • HonestDebate1

            Fail.

            Look, If you want to go all reductio ad absurdem then there is nothing new under the sun. The fact is Republicans have had plenty of ideas but they aren’t running things. That leaves us with the tired old failed policies of Keynesian economics and the first action of any totalitarian regime in history: socialized medicine.

          • Duras

            “Reductio ad absurdum.” I don’t think so. Philosophically speaking in moral and political sense, conservatives has had nothing new since Burke. Any academic can see that.
            Moreover, tell me where O where was their big government before the Great Depression? Where was their a middle class before FDR?

          • pete18

            I’m sorry, what was the new thing that the “we are the change we’ve been waiting for,” candidate brought to American politics? Or for that matter, Clinton or Carter? Glass houses and stones, bad mix.

          • Duras

            First off, I think Obama is spineless. That being said, there are numerous polls that say Obama’s proposed policies that republicans have blocked are vastly popular when his name isn’t attached to the policy. Once his name is attached to the policy, we see the partisan divide because, as we all know, republicans vote against their economic interests.
            Second, I really like the idea that the United States should stop Genocides from happening no matter what the economic costs. That was on display during Libya, but not Syria. And Libya was Obama’s finest foreign policy achievement, better than bin Laden.
            I like the idea of public daycare, which is new in American discourse. I like the idea that democracy is about equal voice, which is not exactly new, but articulated in a new way. I could really go on, but I’ll stop there.

          • pete18

            That’s it? Fully Funded Day Care? That’s the idea that distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans in cutting edge, revolutionary thinking? My, my…
            Of course that’s more easily linked to Marx than any Kevin Bacon connection you’ve drummed up for modern conservatives to Burke, but that hardly matters as it’s such an inconsequential idea.

          • Duras

            I guess you skipped over the part about stopping Genocides no matter what the economic costs. An idea that evolved out of Clinton’s failure.
            I also like the idea Obama had to force care companies to produce cares that get 55 miles per gallon of gas. That’s going to drive a lot of innovation.

          • pete18

            The stopping Genocide “no matter what the price” is a fantasy, not a policy idea. It would be like crediting the Republicans for a new idea because they said they believed in world peace. If stopping genocide no matter what the price was something you supported, then you would have had to have supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, since it is unquestionable that Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who committed genocide against the Kurds.

            Forcing car companies to be more efficient with fuel mileage is a very old idea. I think it would be wise of you concede now that the democrats don’t have anything new either, and just be happy with your position that you don’t like conservative philosophy and policy. That is a perfectly respectable position.

          • Duras

            What do you mean Rwanda was preventable and it provided no economic return? So, you mean to say that Clinton was right not to act, and it was a pure fantasy to stop that Genocide?

            Second, Liberalism started with John Locke, then Kant, then Hegel came around, then Marx, Nietzsche, John Dewy, Karl Popper, Foucault, Derrida, Chomsky, Judith Butler, and so on, all have significant scholarship and new and evolving forms of philosophy.
            Hobbs and Burke are really the only conservative philosophers. Look all over academia: economists are 50/50, but all the sociologists are liberal, all the anthropologists are liberal, philosophers, historians, and literary critics, liberal. All of whom have to advance thought. And the advancement of thought within conservativism stopped with Burke.

            Also, Behavioral Economics is growing rapidly, and that human behavior part of the economic calculus is and will be informed with interdisciplinary principles.

            Second, the mass graves were discovered after the invasion and became an excuse for the invasions. Politicians always find new excuses for bad wars as the war goes on. Bush never went to Iraq to stop a Genocide.

          • pete18

            It’s a fantasy because Obama doesn’t mean it (Syria) and isn’t going to do it. No president could. There are many costs that would be too high for that type of action.

            I’ll take your shift of argument to a listing of the liberal intellectuals in academia and philosophy, which you believe outnumber conservatives, as a tacit admission of not being able to support your first argument.
            Very understandable gear adjustment.

            If preventing genocide no matter what the cost is your supreme value, then taking a preemptive action to remove a proven serial mass murder, before he struck again, would have to be supported by you. Even if the cost was as great as having to support a Republican President whom you despised who also gave additional reasons for taking the action. No cost is too high.

          • Duras

            Also, Carter is one of the most underrated presidents. His energy policy was modeled after Germany’s, and now Germany is number one in energy-efficiency, with no brown outs, while America, on Reagan’s energy policies are what the are, terrible, expensive, and dirty, contributing to rising health care costs and global warming. And America has lots of brown outs that last a long time. The Germans are laughing at us.
            Thanks.

          • HonestDebate1

            His energy policy was to wear a sweater.

          • Shark2007

            You might want to investigate the role of insulation in reducing the rate of heat transfer and thus saving energy. I save energy and money by wearing sweaters in the winter. Carter’s energy plans were quite progressive. Unfortunately a grade B actor undid the things Carter had started, symbolized by removing the solar panels from the Whitehouse.

          • pete18

            Actually what undid Carter was a 7.5 % unemployment rate, a 12% inflation rate and a 21.5 % interest rate,

          • Duras

            The overregulation of the 1970s began with the Nixon Administration. It was Carter who judiciously deregulated government. Some of the deregulation Reagan did contributed to the bubble that burst in 2008. Clinton was even worse.
            It’s really too bad Carter didn’t get reelected–did you know average income would be around $77K had Reagan not radically changed the way income is distributed in this country.

          • Shark2007

            You obviously didn’t read my post well enough to understand the content.

          • pete18

            No, I got what you said. You were focused on Carter’s energy policy. I was responding to your cheap shot at Reagan and Carter’s
            policies in the context of his whole Presidency. If he hadn’t had such a dismal economic record he would have had four more years to wear his sweaters and put up solar panels. There’s no one but him to blame for those progressive policies biting the dust. That “grade B” actor convinced the voters he was better suited for the job and enacted policies that restored the economy.

          • Shark2007

            Oh, yes, the grade B actor who traded weapons to our buddies, the Iranians, for hostages, who put Marines into a situation where the lost ~200 in a bombing because of the rules of engagement (I guess all the people yelling Bengazi were still in knee pants, otherwise I am sure they would have made a fuss), and funded a congressionally banned war in Central America by selling more weapons to the Iranians, appointed Watt as Secretary of the Interior, who said we had to use up all our country’s resources quickly because the 2nd coming was coming soon and we wouldn’t want them to go to waste, and after he retired from his position, went to work for a company making paraquat testing kits for pot heads after spending the public treasury spraying it on pot all over the country. Reagan couldn’t even distinguish between movies he had seen about WWII from real history. His admin. also helped Sadam Hussein use chemical weapons against the Iranians to whom he was selling weapons to fund his war in Central America. This is to say nothing of the evidence that they had the Iranians keep the hostages until Carter was out of office. Frankly I think Carter wold have done a better job.

          • Shark2007

            Reagan taking the solar panels off of the White House was based on his obligation to the fossil fuel industry. If we had followed Carter’s energy policies we would be in a much better position today.

          • pete18

            But he had no new ideas.

          • HonestDebate1

            Going from Edmund Burke to Burke and Hobbs to something that evolved from the ambitions of JFK and expecting that to prove your point is the fail. Are you playing 6 degrees of separation?

            And as I said, one can make an argument that nothing under the sun is a new idea but you have to take arguments to their ridiculous conclusions most of the time. That’s the reductio ad absurdum part.

            I did not say those countries were totalitarian regimes nor did I say universal health care necessarily led to totalitarianism. But it is a valuable tool if you have that inclination because every aspect of your life can be tied to health care.

            “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” -Vladamir Lenin

          • jefe68

            You used the word totalitarianism, not socialist. You implied that nations with national health care plans were totalitarian. You made the statement and now you say that’s not what you meant.

            Great Britain, Germany and Denmark, to name three European nations with some form of national health all have very different systems but the one thing they all do do is deliver health care to the population for less cost than we do and with better results. By the way GB has a Conservative party in power right now. So does Germany.

          • Duras

            Hobbs came before Burke (Edmund Burke). My original comment was that conservatives haven’t had a new idea since Burke. I don’t know if you realize this but they are the only real philosophers of the conservativism. I don’t consider Ayn Rand a philosopher as much as I consider her an articulator of conservativism.
            But it is not a reductio ad absurdum, there really is no evolution of thought in conservativism. I am someone who studies Western Thought for a living. Conservatives have not been able to move out side the shadows of Hobbs and Burke. It is a dead end philosophy, just as Hume represents a dead end but in a different way.
            I also asked you to name one conservative idea that is new, and you gave me an idea from Newt Gingrich, whose idea did not stem from conservative philosophy but the liberal or left wing philosophy of government exploration. No body owns the moon; private companies can colonize it right now. Why does government have to get involved?
            Second, there is no logical connection that Socialized medicine leads to totalitarianism. I agree with Lenin about socialized medicine, but it doesn’t mean “Totalitarianism.” There are social democracies, and there are market democracies. And socialized medicine can and does exist in market democracies. And I’ll go one step further and tell you that in for-profit health care system it is economically sound for people to die younger. Medicare is socialized medicine. The VA is socialized medicine. But none of that has lead to the loss of American democracy. Our loss of democracy is due the legalization of money in politics that began around 1980.

          • Shark2007

            So are you trying to tell us the Scandinavian countries and Finland and Canada are tolatarian?

          • HonestDebate1

            No.

          • PJ McFlur

            Bro.. No worries. Their arguments are asinine.

            Real people debate ideas. These guys just listen to their side and formulate the news bites. Its snark after snark. The philosophy is NEVER debared.

            ‘Washington Post said this…’
            ‘CNN said this….’
            ‘Homeless man at the bus station said this’

            Its never… EVER. I heard Rand Paul say this. You can cut and paste all you want. When you are in the moment is what really matters. I have been witness to Rand Paul more times than I can count.

            I would rather debate his actual speech and action than another Jack Hunter hit piece. Alas, we have those that blindly believe and are openly hostile. Refuse to debate philosophy and issues….

            and instead call Rand racist. Sigh….

            Quit feeding the trolls or demand they actually stand up for something.

          • HonestDebate1

            I can’t tell you how much I agree with your statement: “When you are in the moment is what really matters”.

            Seizing the moment and delivering under pressure is the best.

          • HonestDebate1

            PJ McFlur,

            Your comment cannot be replied to until it gets past the moderator but I read it. My reply was actually a philosophical one and not really even related to your point. I just loved the philosophy you espoused as it relates to my endeavors. Ironic huh?

            I love Rand Paul although I’m not ready to endorse him for Prez at this point. And you are the first person in the history of the universe to ever call me a lefty… and I’ve been called every nasty name in the book. Lefty tops them all.

          • jefe68

            Funny I was just reading some of your comments posted earlier. They were full of the very snark you now despair of. If they are examples of debate and philosophical content I would like to know where these are to be found. Because they seem to be hidden in your discourse.

            “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”
            ― Groucho Marx

          • Shark2007

            Seems to me that Keynesian economics has a lot more intellectual rigor than trickle down economics. Did I miss it when Laffer got his Nobel prize? Did he get it for leaving academia and joining the Club For Growth?

          • J__o__h__n

            Ideas like Romneycare.

          • JobExperience

            and vouchers to defray the cost of right wing Christian schooling.

          • Duras

            I’m telling you, there is nothing new under conservativism. During the last election, Mitt Romney was a veritable Edmund Burke … Burke with a deeply perverted sense of Adam Smith.

          • J__o__h__n

            No, Burke didn’t pander.

          • creaker

            I’d give credit for that idea to Robert Heinlein – and the people in his future history that made it happen were basically libertarians.

          • HonestDebate1

            Love him.

          • Shark2007

            Heinlein wrote science fiction. The fiction format allows the author to invent anything in service of his story/idea. Just check out Ayn Rand’s excursions into the fanciful pretending to be serious philosophy.

      • Shark2007

        Burke wouldn’t recognize today’s conservatives as such. “I like paying taxes, with it I purchase civilization”.

  • skrekk

    Really? The issue isn’t the freedom to say something despicable, the issue is whether a business can offer goods or services to the general public while denying service to a disfavored class in direct violation of public accommodations laws.

    Neo-confederates like Rand Paul were on Lester Maddox’s side of this debate.

    • OnPointComments

      If the issue is whether anyone, even private enterprises, should be prohibited from making the decision to deny services to a disfavored class, how do you feel about the numerous women’s colleges that won’t admit men?

      • skrekk

        Sounds like they’re mostly relics of a time not very long ago when women were prohibited from almost all colleges.

        As the supreme court noted in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan: “In limited circumstances, a gender-based classification favoring one sex can be justified if it intentionally and directly assists members of the sex that is disproportionately burdened.”

        And I’m unaware that men in the US have ever been a disfavored class.

        • JobExperience

          It’s like restrooms. Some women can’t pee or learn if a man is gazing at them. That’s a relic of sexism and sexual violence.

  • skrekk

    Another issue which reveals Rand Paul’s poor character and opposition to basic fairness, he felt the military should be free to discriminate against gays: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/09/23/jack-conway-rand-paul-offer-divergent-views-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/

    • PJ McFlur

      And so are you!!! A staffer!!!!

  • HonestDebate1

    I just heard the show. Bravo to Mr. Paul for the way he handled the witchHunt thing.

    • HonestDebate1

      When I commented that Mr. Paul was on Glenn Beck’s show directly after On Point, it garnered quite a few comments.

      To bring it full circle with the above comment:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/06/rand-paul-gets-testy-during-radio-interview-dont-you-have-anything-better-to-read-than-a-bunch-of-crap/

      If On Point can get referenced by The Blaze from time to time it might just get somewhere. Congrats.

      • PJ McFlur

        Seriously. Who do you work for? You are either a staffer or former volunteer. One does not have cherry picked info like yours….

        Unless of course, you have an agenda.

        Calling you out for what you are. Gotta love the internet. Learning curve for sure…. but some of us learn faster than others.

        Keep trying. This is gonna be fun by 16.

        • HonestDebate1

          I get paid by the Koch brothers by the word to make lefties go nuts. Why do you ask?

          I also frequent The Blaze and I already referenced Beck when I heard Mr. Paul on his show this morning. I think the “you’re a racist” argument is sick and cheered at the radio when he shut Harwood down. Commenters here are sick of me replying “that’s sick” every time the debate devolves to that point. But I’ve done it for years because it’s a shallow, sick and stupid rebuttal.

          • jefe68

            Oh the inanity.

          • J__o__h__n

            How much do they pay? I could switch for enough money to make it in my self interest to vote Republican.

          • JobExperience

            The Blaze or The Blade?

    • PJ McFlur

      You are a staffer!!!! OMG!!!

  • skrekk

    >>>You want the federal government to decicde in other words.

    Yes, in the same way that the feds decided on the mixed-race marriage issue. A state should not be allowed to deny its citizens equal protection of the law.

  • creaker

    Who pays for your security?

    • Oscar_DeGrouch

      What security?

  • skrekk

    Greenwald is one of the gay folks which Rand Paul thinks the states should be free to deny marriage.

  • Shark2007

    Ayn Rand Paul is a snake oil salesman, just like his name sake Ayn Rand.

    • dmllc

      His name is Randall… Rand for short.

      • JobExperience

        And boy is he! Short I mean. He must have been at the back of the line. In Heaven.

    • Art Toegemann

      My take on Election 2012 was the 3 Pauls: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Paul “Ayn Rand” Ryan, a confusion of homonyms.

  • Shark2007

    So you think every one should do an extensive background check on their medical practitioner instead of having state and professional licensing boards?

  • RonShirtz

    I find it disingenuous that NPR labels Rand a Libertarian and that Rand himself accepts the designation during the interview.

    He’s a moderately conservative Republican, who compared to the GOP RINOs, appears like a Libertarian.

    Just like the Fed waters down our currency, so does politics and the media adulterates words and definitions to encourage public perception to achieve a desired result.

    • skrekk

      I wouldn’t call either Ron or Rand a “moderately conservative Republican” since both Pauls are in sync with other Christian extremists on every social issue except for drug use.

      Where they really differ from the rest of the GOP is on foreign policy.

      And I definitely agree that neither Paul is a libertarian. They’re just socially conservative isolationists.

      • dmllc

        they are classical liberals. learn the definition.

    • Shark2007

      Perhaps you would like to point out the true libertines and how they differ from the Pauls.

      • Faithkills

        Socialism – Government control over the means of production – Marx

        Fascism – the merger of state and corporate power – Mussolini

        Clearly Obama nor Bush are the former, both are the latter.

        Teddy Roosevelt ran on the progressive ticket. FDR ran against Hoover’s overspending. Truman opposed nuking defenseless cities. Reagan ran up the debt. Lincoln killed 3/4 mil Americans supposedly in order to free slaves which every other nation ON THE PLANET did without a war, overturned habeas corpus, enacted unconstitutional conscription and an income tax before it was legal..

        Trying to determine political philosophy according to what presidents did is like getting hit with a cattle prod every time you try to think. There is no consistent philosophy except increasing central power.

        • Shark2007

          A curious read on history. Particularly FDR running against Hoover’s “overspending”. You ever read about the new deal?

          • Don_B1

            Actually, F.D.R. did run on fiscal responsibility, promising to eliminate wasteful parts of government, etc.

            But he was willing to experiment with implementing new programs to create work for the unemployed. Note that Keynes had not yet published his theory, not to mention the theory of Milton Friedman that the Federal Reserve could have, by acting opposite to what it did in 1929-1931, enlarging the money supply instead of contracting it, prevented the worst effects of the recession that set the Great Depression on its way.

            But until there was a separate need for large-scale spending, the preparation for war in 1939-1940, did anyone find the courage for enough government spending to finally end the Great Depression.

          • Duras

            Yeah, the only thing that would have ended the Great Depression sooner would have been a national highway project. Also, good to note, those public employees who built the war machine were well-paid.

        • TJPhoto40

          Thanks for the simplistic, distorted and downright extremist definitions along with warped historical revisionism. With all the vague talk about Liberty and fascism on this blog, I think we’re more likely to implode from within than have a real “revolution” as another extremist claims here. But this freewheeling delusion does allow you to call someone whatever inflammatory rhetoric you think will get a rise out of other jingoists and extremists.

  • brianmiddleton

    Wonder why liberals and democrats never bring up the fact that the democratic party put the former head of the KKK in charge of their party for over 10 years in the 90s. and why the black only caucus won’t allow other than blacks to join… .. always neglected in these conversations…

    • JobExperience

      Byrd changed. Why can’t you?

      • brianmiddleton

        Why do I need to change? I am not a member of the KKK… Would it be okay to have a white only congressional caucus?

  • seethingsclearly

    It saddens me that so many people believe Rand Paul can be
    not only the savior of a morally and intellectually challenged political party
    like the Republicans but also of our entire country, awash as it is with numerous
    social and economic problems that demand serious attention rather than simplistic
    blather. All that one needs to know
    about Paul was glaringly revealed just after he won election to the Senate in
    2010, when he opined, like a Zen neophyte fixated on Ultimate Truth, that there
    are “no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor” in our economy, but
    rather “we are all interconnected.” With
    apparent unwitting candor, Paul then amplified this naïve banality into the
    following pithy statement, revealing more about our economic system – and Paul’s
    preferred place in it – than a hundred dry textbooks on the subject: “…we all either work for rich people, or we
    sell stuff to rich people, so just punishing rich people is as bad for the
    economy as punishing anyone…”

    Paul is a run-of-the-mill right-wing apologist for the
    wealthy and powerful whose supposedly innovative ideas boil down to an
    abrogation of governmental responsibility at all levels to “promote the general
    welfare,” as the constitution states in its preamble. Paul is the latest in a long line of
    politicians enchanted with well-worn forms of social Darwinism that have been
    tried and found wanting for decades. And
    as others have perceptively noted throughout this commentary, his obvious character
    flaws brand him unfit for serious consideration as a national political leader. Incapable
    of brooking even the slightest criticism, he resorts instead to rudely talking
    over the host and ungenerously demanding the interview be conducted on his
    terms. Like Mitt Romney, who never
    hesitated to hurl accusations of religious bigotry at anyone who dared ask
    whether his difficult to comprehend Mormon beliefs were fair game for criticism
    in a presidential campaign, Paul dourly
    wraps himself in a protective cloak of sanctimony and righteous indignation
    whenever controversial aspects of his past views and associations are brought
    to the fore. Courageous he is not. The speed with which he delivers well-rehearsed
    answers to softball questions he obviously prefers is off-putting. We have seen his type before (e.g., Ayn Rand). They offer little of any real value to anyone
    but those self-hypnotized into believing their redeemer has truly arrived.

    • LinxS

      You show that you do not understand anything, or you are just a paid shill. Rand Paul is not what you say, neither was his father. They, unlike the actual rich party leaders, are for yours and my individual liberty, which people like you seem to not care anything about. If you are not for candidates that are for liberty, then you are for a type of socialism or fascist society, therefore you are not worth listening to. i see people from all walks starting to wake up to the destruction of our system by both the Democrats and Republicans and we will see the system changed this election. We will get back to Liberty id we have to have a Civil War at some point. Wise Up!

      • seethingsclearly

        The vehemence of your response fairly proves my point that
        Paul and his acolytes can’t tolerate criticism and simply prefer to avoid
        providing rebuttals based on reasonable arguments. So you think that because I am critical of
        Paul, I don’t understand anything about him.
        That sounds much like what Ayn Rand’s followers are always throwing back
        at critics. And for the record, I am not
        a shill, paid or otherwise. You know
        absolutely nothing about me but felt free to make a few choice ad hominem
        assumptions such as whether I believe in individual freedom.

        There just might be an alternative to your view that the politicians
        of both parties are responsible for the ills of our economic system. To state what appears to me to be
        obvious: the entire economy is run for
        the benefit of a relatively small number of privileged people, those who are
        the actual owners of the vast wealth of the country, people like the Koch
        brothers and the Walton family of Wal-Mart notoriety. They are the ones who have twisted the arms
        of politicians to serve their interests.
        They are the ones who have engaged in decades of class warfare against
        the majority of the public, with their eyes fixed upon the Holy Grail of conservative
        politics, the permanent destruction of the New Deal and Great Society programs,
        programs that have actually helped reduce the income gap between classes in our
        country. They ultimately call the shots
        in our economy. Libertarian politicians like
        your hero Paul serve this class of fabulously wealthy people eagerly and are
        their ideological bedfellows – as the statement I quoted above from Paul’s
        election victory interview makes clear – while spouting faux-populist notions
        that make it seem they are on the side of ordinary working-class folks. Wealth inequality is at egregious levels. Your champion of individual freedom champions
        no policies that address this problem, nor could he. A man who believes, as Paul did in response
        to Obama’s State of the Union address earlier this year, that “if you cut just
        one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within
        six or seven years” is asking a lot to be taken seriously as a knowledgeable
        person, let alone a promoter of economic justice. When it comes to economics, like father, like
        son. They both, along with the likes of unwarrantably
        influential Republicans such as Paul Ryan, hold simplistic views of what ails
        the body politic and what can cure it.

        • dmllc

          you are copy and pasting your responses, as indicated by the line breaks in the post. how about creating some original thoughts.

          • seethingsclearly

            The line breaks have nothing to do with cutting and pasting
            anything. They are an unfortunate
            artifact of my computer and I wish they weren’t there. How about answering any of my points about
            Paul? What do you think of the “rich
            people” quote? Or are you content simply
            to write I have nothing original to say?

          • LinxS

            I will give an answer to your quote. Just like liberals to cut and paste the part of the quote which, by itself, does not sound good. By doing this, you take it out of context. The question raised, during a discussion on the economy and raising taxes, was why don’t we tax just the rich. go to the link I put above and research the site. The reason we either work for or sell to the rich is that everything is corporatized today, in one way or another, and if we tax the rich that are in charge of those corporations, it is the average worker and consumer that will pay in the long run! They will just layoff people and raise their prices to offset the tax. The people that work for the corporations are the ones that will suffer and the rest of us that sell products to the corporations.

          • seethingsclearly

            If you want to add positively to this discussion, you might start by avoiding
            the temptation to insert into your posts gratuitous remarks such as it’s “[J]ust
            like liberals to cut and paste the part of the quote which, by itself, does not
            sound good.” Along with the previous remark you made that I didn’t have any original thoughts, they add nothing and simply make you sound arrogant.

            Your argument amounts to an admission that corporations are in an entrenched position of dominance vis-à-vis the rest of us and that therefore we, as individual workers and consumers, must simply acquiesce to all the self-serving decisions they make, because to do otherwise would jeopardize our precious means of earning a livelihood and, further, make it necessary for us to pay more for their products and services.

            For someone so concerned about “individual liberty,” as I assume you
            must be (since you are a Paul supporter), such a point of view seems incongruous at best.

            Coming straight to the heart of my concerns: in a time of astronomical levels of wealth inequality not seen since the 1920’s, I think it is unconscionable for anyone who loudly trumpets the goal of individual freedom to make it sound as if nothing can or should be done about corporate dominance of our lives. Do you think it is good and right, fair and just, for CEO’s to be making hundreds of times more than the average worker? If so, how do you justify it? Do you think the fast food industry’s workers deserve a living wage? These are issues upon which the individual freedom of untold millions depends. Both Paul and you would be singing quite a different tune, it seems to me, if there were anything approaching a mass social movement of working people organized to fight for their economic rights. That there is none is another story.

            What about Paul’s argument that if we cut a penny out of every dollar we spend it will end the deficit? Critics have shown it to be woefully defective. If this is the kind of thinking that is supposed to represent the philosophical heart of a powerful new movement within the Republican party, then it has a long way to go to convince a majority of the public it offers serious proposals for solving deep-seated problems.

          • seethingsclearly

            Dear LinxS: Sorry. I ascribed the comment made above about my lacking original thoughts to you in error. It was from someone else and I confused the two of you in the thread. My apologies for the mistake.

          • JobExperience

            He may lack full understanding of the edit menu on his device, and be envious of others capabilities.
            And yes,, he’s a Kapo.

          • JobExperience

            Your argument amounts to threats and/or extortion by the wealthy and corporations. You are their mouthpiece delivering terror.

            To assume as you do that regulations and laws perpetuating economic advantage,, and market conditions can never change you seek to instill quiescence and futility. You argue that special interests have the right to retaliate with impunity against critics simply because they are more powerful. In doing this you submit to the “big dog”,, bow down and offer him your cornhole. Don’t be offering mine, whiney.

          • JobExperience

            Wow,, a robo-caller (dmllc) denies anyone disagreeing with his received spiel access to outside sources. Maybe Randians can only win debates when the opponent is under police interrogation. They’re so Great they seize the right to censor, insult and torture their assumed inferiors. It’s “Mario and the Magician” (Mann) every show. Would these tactics work in person? In an open forum? I think not. They don’t succeed here.

        • Wildan

          And how do you think the “economy” could be “run by a few people,” without government regulations? This is what bothers me about liberal economic reasoning, you critique our current government regulated, welfare-warfare society as being controlled by a small elite, but yet, you defend that very system when you opposed reforms to change that system! –that’s precisely WHY a small elite is able to exist. Economic regulations is what allows businesses to eliminate competition and mass high concentrations of wealth that you so despise. The last thing these so called ‘elites’ want is Libertarian free markets –since that would permit people like you and I to compete with them (e.g, it would mean the doubling, tripling, etc, of their competition) which would threaten their government imposed cartels. This is why the Republican Party and their minions crucified Ron Paul during election years and praised him during non-election years – libertarianism is a threat to the business class they serve –they actually support highly regulated markets, the FED, etc. All these regulations, of course, operate under the guise of ‘protecting’ us –which is a lie, they protect wealth and seldom protect us. If you want to read a well researched book on this read “The Triumph of Conservatism” by Gabriel Kolko, it will alter they way you view the Progressive Era. Kolko explained that a less regulated market prevented concentrations of wealth, the business class took note of it, and embraced Progressive legislation as an attempt to defeat their competition and control markets via government, all the while selling “protection” to the public. This is what has led to the crony captitalism today, that has produced those “elites” you so despise. If you really want to end this, then I suggest look to the benefits of free-markets, or at least freer markets. A continued welfare/warfare state is both a failure and unsustainable, if we are survive the century we will have to reduce the state.

          • Shark2007

            You need to study the post Civil war economic history of the U.S. Learn what interlocking directorates in corporations are and how they worked in the late 19th century. The Libertarian utopia is a fantasy that ignores the power of accumulated capital, and human nature.

          • LinxS

            Learn about post Civil War here: republicfortheunitedstates.org and you will see that the U.S. Government is a Corporation, changing the Constitution ever so slightly after the war. Our government is a defacto government and not the dejure government it should be. It is not of,by and for the people no more, it is a Corporation and we are all Corporate citizens.

          • Wildan

            Professor “Kolko notwithstanding”? Actually I think your ignorance is notwithstanding. Your description of history reflects the standard, gov. approved, narrative that many credulously accept without actually doing any real research. So, yes, I am well aware of the bed time story of the late 19th century, so called, ‘robber barons,’ who amassed enormous wealth and became quasi-monopolies, and so the Fed. gov’t was forced to intervene to ‘protect’ us, etc, etc. This, as Kolko meticulously documented in his book, –is a myth. It is true that they attempted to merge (e.g, the “Great Mergers” of the 1890s, etc), establish cartels, etc – but this proved to be a failure (eg., insufficient in preventing competition), and also unprofitable (therefore unsustainable). Without govt controls, they were unable to prevent the diffusion of profits to outside competition, they understood this. Thus, by the turn of the century they embraced regulation and progressivism so that they could control the markets. Again, the details of this are in Kolko’s book, maybe you should read it before knocking it. Still, never mind history, use your common sense – how would it be possible for any business to exert so much control over a market without government assistance, and without providing a superior product or service? I hope the answer is obvious. Absent geographic barriers, the only other possibility are government barriers via regulations – which is precisely what happened in the early 20th c. I’m sorry but, you, and millions like you, are the actual ones “dumb enough” to believe that these regulations ‘protect’ you, when in fact, they empower those very “elites” they are supposed to constrain.

          • Shark2007

            Large corporations had the economic power to sell below cost long enough to put smaller companies out of business, or buy them out. Look at Standard Oil and the railroad monopolies in California that spurred the progressive movement into existence.

          • seethingsclearly

            I can’t seem to make sense of your argument that government regulations are the real causes of our economic problems. How do regulations actually cause businesses to eliminate competition? There is a wealth of evidence to the contrary. What were the Sherman antitrust laws and a host of other regulations all about if not a response to an endemic problem in the American economic system? Corporations, left to themselves, have always sought to band together into cartels, fix prices, or otherwise engage in self-serving manipulations of the vaunted “free” market whenever they could. Corporations hate competition. They hate taxes and have always sought increasingly creative ways (a la the Cayman Islands) to avoid paying them, passing them along instead to us lowly consumers as a normal cost of doing business.

            Yes, in a perfect world, there might be such a thing as a “free” market, where all the players were “free” to make decisions that would, in the aggregate, reveal enlightened self-interest as the propellant behind all economic activity. But the world doesn’t work that way. There is entrenched power and privilege, and an unfair distribution of the fruits of labor. I see no way in which Libertarianism attacks such problems. It is a movement, instead, that kowtows to and apologizes for the wealthiest sliver of the population.

            I’m afraid you ascribe far too much power and significance to the libertarian movement, which I believe is destined to remain a fringe phenomenon. The only threat that libertarianism poses is to distort the minds of impressionable people into believing it is a serious, consistent philosophy that provides some kind of ethical foundation for true human freedom, when the opposite is the case. Libertarians worship at the altar of unbridled greed and selfishness. A world solely consisting of libertarians would quickly devolve into chaos as everyone tried to take advantage of everyone else. The ideal libertarian example was Ayn Rand, and the movement’s bible is “Atlas Shrugged,” which has skyrocketed back into popularity thanks to Tea Party support. But we don’t actually live in an Ayn Rand novel, despite what people like Paul Ryan think (he actually said that, “metaphorically speaking,” we do).

          • Wildan

            “How do regulations actually cause businesses to eliminate competition?” –are you serious? I could write you a book to answer this question, instead I’ll give you a real world personal anecdote. My step-father wanted to open a pawn shop, when he applied for a business license with the city, he was informed he’d have to pay $50K permit to open his shop, my step-father did not open a pawn shop. This regulation, of course, does nothing to protect the public only the profits of those existing pawn shops. This is just one of millions of examples –millions of regs. that only protect the profits of a few (hence, the true impetus of regs. to begin with, I’ve argued).

            Again, your view of history is the standard narrative – unregulated markets led to ‘robber barons’ who formed monopolies, and gov’t had to come to the rescue, etc, etc. I know, I’m aware of that story. Turns out its not quite true. It is true there were attempts by business leaders to form cartels, mergers, etc, but by the late 1890s, they quickly realized that not only did their attempts fail to prevent competition (how could it?), but also proved expensive and unprofitable (thus unsustainable). They then turned to the only entity that could achieve these goals – government. Big business embraced regulations in order to create economic barriers that they could live up to but not their competitors – all the while selling us propaganda that these regs. protect us.

            So, yes, you mentioned the Sherman Anti-trust laws – do some research on this. This law was originally ambiguous and not truly enforced until the early 20th century, despite being drafted in the 19th – why so long to enforce? Because by the early 1900′s those business elites realized that that law could be used to attack their competition, this is why Pres. Teddy Ross., Taft, Wilson, only selectively enforced it, allowing the businesses they deemed good, and dissolving the others (these presidents were bank rolled and supported by elites, such as JP Morgan, etc.). Again, there is a lot literature on this, but a good one would be Kolko’s “Triumph of Conservatism”. I suggest you read it.

            As long as people believe that govt must protect us from peaceful activites like opening pawn shops, I’m afraid you might be right, Libertarianism will remain a “fringe phenomenon”.

          • seethingsclearly

            Please, enough with the condescending remarks like “Are you kidding?” and “do some research.” If you want to convince me of the cogency of your argument, then it would help to jettison the dismissive tone that runs through your writing. The trouble with online forums like these is that people give in too often to the momentary satisfaction of being rude to those with whom they disagree.

            You and I disagree, that’s for sure. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of what happened during the “Robber Baron” age. I don’t disagree with Kolko’s thesis that big business has greatly influenced government in government’s attempts to rein in corporate excess. That is clearly borne out by a mountain of evidence, from the Progressive Era right up until today. But I think it is far too glib to dismiss historically important pieces of legislation like the Sherman Act as mere “propaganda” foisted upon a presumably unwitting, easily duped populace simply because these laws have not been properly enforced.

            You may feel satisfied that Kolko corroborates your libertarian view about the deleterious effects of partly concocting regulatory laws in a sub rosa fashion. No doubt you know that Kolko also wrote “Wealth and Power in America” in 1962, a study critical of the lopsided income distribution in the U.S. Where do you stand on that issue? Who’s the culprit here, if there be any? Or do you think that the libertarian perspective demands we tolerate such inequity?

            As far as your stepfather’s experience goes, too bad for him, but to imply that this proves the government is too interested in “protecting us from peaceful activities” is a stretch. Regulations may be imperfect, to say the least. But an economy devoid of regulations would be far worse. I venture to say that Kolko would agree.

          • Wildan

            I apologize if I offended you – I was astonished at the question, “how do regs. eliminate competition?”. Kolko is a socialist (of some sort), which is in part why he felt the Progressive Era was a betrayal, since it actually empowered wealthy elites who designed their own regulations (precisely my point). Of course, socialism is antithetical to free-markets as night is to day. So, ironically, I accept his arguments (they’re well documented), but I don’t accept his worldview, obviously. Socialism, that long discredited, both in theory and practice, worldview (or religion?) that offered the false promise of “leveling the playing field,” etc, etc.

            We must ask what does that mean? What exactly is “inequality,” as opposed to “equality”? Is the goal equality, where everyone has exactly the same material wealth -to the penny? Surly not. Then how much wealth difference is acceptable? How many pennies are too much or too little? Clearly this is subjective and impossible to produce a single correct answer. We don’t know how to eliminate inequality because we don’t know how to define it (and neither does anyone else). Who are the poor, for instance – aren’t they simply people who have less material wealth relative to someone else? If so, then technically, can’t anyone who isn’t Bill Gates qualify as poor? The entire notion of eliminating inequality is an exercise in subjective mental constructions, that are based on nothing objectively real (fantasy).

            Further, why would you ever even want to eliminate inequality – inequality is what has allowed us to progress. Without a profit motive, where would advanced and complex societies be – they wouldn’t exist! If you recall there used to exist a nation that once promised equality to all, and guaranteed everyone a job, job training, a house, an education, healthcare, and public transportation –that country was the Soviet Union. People weren’t trying to move there, they were trying to get out! The last time most human beings were truly equal (and could be equal) were hunter-gather societies in prehistoric times.

            So inequality is healthy and necessary for human progress. The question we must ask is under what conditions afford those who have less material wealth then others (the poor) the most opportunities to gain more material wealth. The answer is government that protects private property (equally, not just for elites like we see in impoverished nations), and with that, the free exchange of goods/services will follow (free markets). As I’ve implied earlier, most inequality today is gov’t imposed to begin with (eg., via regulations) –this is the only inequality that is not acceptable, since it is creates artificial barriers for upward mobility, stifles progress.

            If anyone truly wanted to help the “poor,” then get rid of red tape, reduce or eliminate the economic barriers that prevent prospective entrepreneurs from entering the market (like my step-father).

            I’ll give you another personal anecdote (you mentioned the “real world”), I used to be a Real Estate agent. Before I could even legally work, I had to pay over $2K (I’m not kidding) for state mandated classes (pre-approved by gov’t), license, and fees. Guess who drafted the state laws controlling Real Estate agents? – the TExas Association of Realtors (TAR), a private association. This goes back to my point – the $2K is a barrier for anyone (but especially the poor!) to enter the market – its artificial job security for existing realtors. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg, there are millions of cases like this – this nation is awash with economic constraints. So, yes, lets reduce artificial inequality – lets eliminate laws on peaceful activities (most market regs), and reduce the state to its sole purpose – protection of life, liberty, and property. This is the only realistic view I believe in, because it the only one that has been empirically shown to work. It doesn’t afford us utopia, it affords us opportunities – the rest is up to us.

          • seethingsclearly

            Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply. No need to apologize. It’s not that I was offended but merely felt your arguments would be more forceful simply presented as such.

            I appreciated your informing me in greater detail of what your views are regarding inequality. I believe I have heard these views before, particularly from supporters of Ayn Rand (I’m guessing you might be one of them).

            I find it tellng that you regard the question of inequality almost as an academic one, to the point where you have difficulty even defining the term. To claim that the subject is merely subjective and therefore too slippery to grasp seems dismissive to me. To borrow from a famous phrase by supreme court justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define inequality to your satisfaction, but I sure know it when I see it. For many millions of people suffering greatly here and throughout the world, the subject is certainly not just a hypothetical one. Of course it would be foolish to argue, and I do not, that we should strive for a society with no inequality. I grant you that people are of unequal talent and ability from birth on, but that is beside the point. The point is not about what is inherently unequal. The point is this: taking a non-academic, practical, “real world” example, it ought to be clear as day that for a corporate CEO to make over three hundred times what the average worker makes in that same corporation is not justifiable, under any circumstance, at any time, by any rational argument. It is especially unjustifiable when one inquires as to how such executive compensation is actually determined: the CEO’s board of directors arbitrarily set the pay at such astronomical levels, making a mockery of the idea that wages and prices are automatically established by the impersonal workings of the almighty law of supply and demand.

            You appear to criticize socialism as a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that has never worked. But it seems quite ironic to me that the so-called “free” market you and other libertarians extol is just as much of a fantasy. “Free” markets in the way you describe them have never existed and probably never will. Corporations and government have always interfered with the market and always will. The whole point of public policy (e.g., the tax code) is to accept that fact and then determine how much interference is warranted, on whose behalf.

            I don’t agree that inequality is “gov’t imposed to begin with.” Nor would I call it “healthy” and the main engine of progress, unless you mean the inherent inequality of people’s abilities and talents. It is economic inequality I am really concerned with, especially the outrageous, unjustifiable levels we have today, and I think it is easy to find its root. Inequality is a result of unwarrantable deference paid to the needs and wishes of stupendously wealthy people, so that the entire economic system, along with the legal system, is run primarily for their benefit. As far as helping the poor goes (I don’t know why you put quotes around that word at one point in your reply, as if to imply, again, that this is merely an academic term with no basis in reality), my solution is simple: give ‘em more money. Here’s my economic plan in a nutshell: Most people’s wages should be sharply increased. Fantastically rich people can afford to make a lot less. Maybe that sounds to you as unsophisticated as certain libertarian concepts do to me, and it certainly can’t happen without a huge social movement to force such a change, but it would immediately end a lot of suffering, at least in the short term. Finally, I wish it were as simple as you say, that all we need are opportunities and that “the rest is up to us.” I’d like to believe that’s true, but there are so many caveats for me. Although you write with obvious conviction and passion, based no doubt on your own experience, my experience and the experience of countless others is quite different and needs to be acknowledged. Otherwise, one might be in danger of accepting Herman Cain’s odiously insensitive put-down: “If you don’t have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself!”

      • Shark2007

        Exactly which of your individual liberties are being restricted? Your liberty to not pay taxes?

      • JobExperience

        Have you been to any Civil War re-enactments?
        You seem to have a romance going with it.
        A new Civil War would be even bloodier than the first (see Syria) and the issues would be different (not slavery). Nothing much will change this next election. We will probably see your Oligarchs sponsor the same talking heads (or younger relatives). I doubt you’ll get your new Civil War either, despite your guns,, and your sizing up of your neighbors for execution, torture, rape and looting. So don your gray uniform and carry the stars and bars on Halloween,, when it is appropriate.

  • TJPhoto40

    I did actually listen to Rand Paul and others in this program. Some of what Paul says makes sense to me as a progressive, but some of it is plain nonsensical or impractical. I hope he’s serious about the inclusion of all kinds of people in a political effort, but of course if they disagree with him on major ideological points, that’s where the inclusion falls apart for people like him.

    As for his evasions and snapping defensiveness about people like a key staffer who he finally cut loose, Paul was quoted as saying that it’s sad when we can’t have an adolescence anymore, as if Jack Hunter said these things that many years ago, when in fact he was saying just as inflammatory a Confederate line of garbage within the last two years. And Paul is either lying or incredibly ignorant of the people with whom he works closely if he claims he was unaware of Hunter’s history and objectionable views. He continues to evade or deny the seriousness of this issue regarding someone he co-authored a book with. This makes him seem more like a typical politician who cares most about his own rise to power, not about the good of the country.

    • Pete

      What could Rand say that would satisfy you with respect to Jack Hunter? My guess is nothing. I’m also guessing that no matter what Rand said you would never vote for him, and as such, you have an interest in perpetuating this whole “Rand is racist by association” straw man rather than having a serious discussion about his views. It’s much easier to talk about Jack Hunter than it is to talk about foreign aid to Egypt, the fourth amendment, and bringing the troops home from Obama’s wars.

      • TJPhoto40

        What crazy leaps of logic you have going here, and your own calculated
        evasions. Just because I wouldn’t vote for someone doesn’t mean I would
        perpetuate false criticisms of him, assuming they are false. If you
        don’t think it’s telling about a person who he works closely with and
        writes a book with, you’re living in a state of delusion. Rand Paul
        could say something but won’t. He’d rather deny the importance of bad
        choices in friends and colleagues, from what I’ve heard. I’m happy to
        talk about other issues, but don’t ignore one that matters.

        • mountainaires

          You just DID perpetuate false criticisms. Of Rand Paul. You’re just a hypocrite; and you’re using hypocritical lies to smear Rand Paul. In point of fact, you’re also excusing and denying that Democrat/Communists like Joe Biden, the CBC and even Barack Obama–who marched in 2008 with the New Black Panther Party, and interposed himself into a court case involving George Zimmerman when he had no business doing so–are not racists, by your own standards for Rand Paul! Get your head out of that dark place and smell your own stink, buddy.

          • TJPhoto40

            Man, you’re getting seriously worked up and offensive in your references here. It’s bad enough when you distort what I’m saying and go on to spout extremist views that take this further off topic, but you’re sinking pretty low with the nasty allusion at the end. Try for a bit of civility so we think you’re still a rational creature.

        • marquisdesloth

          How about bad choices in presidents???
          You people on this echo chamber love it when Obama kills brown children in the Middle East. You people on this echo chamber loves Obma’s expansion of Bush’s wars.
          You love Obama’s expansion of Bush’s police state.
          We didnt you love Bush adn much as Obama? Because you have been trained since you were a child to ra-ra for your home team and turn a blind eye to the murder of children with drones and a growing police state. You are as bad as the reps. You are as bad as the Germans people in Hitler’s Germany. Do the world a favor ands Kill yourself!

    • Pete

      Oh and another thing. Should we also consider those who worship at the alter of Lincoln racist by association? Not only was he in favor of deporting African Americans, he said HORRIBLY racist things and continuously expressed an indifference to slavery throughout his career as a politician.

      • TJPhoto40

        Ah, now you’re going to insult Lincoln and compare that with Rand Paul’s associations. Hey, many of our founders had questionable, conflicted or downright abhorrent views on slavery and other matters, including Jefferson. Lincoln was downright enlightened by comparison with many of them. I hope we’re well past that now. If Paul isn’t, that’s a problem. His father, for example, never disavowed an earlier position that business owners shouldn’t be forced to admit people who they don’t care to serve for reasons of race or anything else. That’s recent history, not early American history with all its imperfections. Join the party in the 21st century.

        • marquisdesloth

          People like you on this echo chamber love it when Obama kills brown children in the Middle East. You people on this echo chamber loves Obma’s expansion of Bush’s wars.
          You love Obama’s expansion of Bush’s police state.
          We didnt you love Bush adn much as Obama? Because you have been trained since you were a child to ra-ra for your home team and turn a blind eye to the murder of children with drones and a growing police state. You are as bad as the reps. You are as bad as the Germans people in Hitler’s Germany. Do the world a favor ands Kill yourself!

    • glockstr

      If we hold one person or a party responsible for an other persons actions then the Democrats have a lot to answer for with regards to Robert Byrd’s KKK involvement, Bill Clinton’s, Biden’s, Susan Sontag’s, Mary Berry’s and many others persistent racist statements.

    • Bob Smetters

      I read he said a lot of it he was unaware of…. sounds familiar… didn’t his dad say the same about his racist news letters, that he had no idea what was in them?

  • dmllc

    property rights is a basis of libertarianism. i should be able to do with MY property as I see fit.

    • skrekk

      That’s what all the businesses in sundown towns in the Jim Crow south said.

      That view of “property rights” is why black folks needed the Green Book to travel safely.

      • JobExperience

        Property needs capping.

  • Bob Smetters

    Rand must be a new breed of libertarian. He recently fought to extend tobacco subsidies and keep paying people not to grow tobacco because many in his state have their hands in that federal pot. Not exactly free market…. He recently stated “Any war with Israel is a war with the US”.. sounds rather neocon foreign policy to me. He has made ending abortion rights an agenda of his… many of his statements are contrary to the libertarian values I remember.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Please, give us more of that great shoe-leather politicking that wins Libertarians so many adherents.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “I want the two people to decide” has squat to do with all the benefits a married husband and wife get which lifelong gay or lesbian partners don’t.

    Try again.

  • MJCIV

    “Guilt by association” is weak argument, John. President Obama is no stranger to working closely with…let’s say less than mainstream people. If you are going to go after Sen. Paul for his fired staffer, let’s see some reporting on Al Sharpton, a man who the President claims is a close advisor.

    Be fair, be balanced, or fund yourself with commercials. I love NPR, but the “P” is for public, not Progressive.

    • jefe68

      PBS and NPR got just $445 million from the government in 2012—or about 0.014 percent of the federal budget.

      If you don’t like the show turn it off. I did. Not for the same reasons you might, I really have no interest in listening to Rand Paul.

      • MJCIV

        Great! Then they won’t miss the money, and can be completely open about their biases. Lets hope they do as we’ll as MSNBC and Air America.

        • jefe68

          The voice of the philistine.

      • marquisdesloth

        jefe68
        Oh, he is a bigot??? Prove it liar!

        • jefe68

          Rand Paul was on Glenn Becks show when he equated gay marriage and people marrying animals.

          A spokesperson later said he was be sarcastic.

          I’m having a Travis Buckle moment in context your inane comment.

  • skrekk

    Given that both of the Pauls oppose the Incorporation Doctrine as well as the VRA and CRA, the best description is indeed “neoconfederate”.

    They both think a state should be free to treat some of its citizens as 2nd-class persons. Ron Paul even authored legislation to make it so.

    • Bruce94

      Excellent point. And, thanks shrekk for the incisive commentary that you and others (e.g. duras and seethingsclearly) have provided on this topic below. Y’all have really done your homework picking apart this laissez-faire, State’s rights, libertarian leaning wing-nut and the faux right-wing populism he seems to generate. To me Paul represents all that is dysfunctional in Washington today, and as a potential GOP presidential contender would be a joke if not for the forum he would gain for his ideology–an ideology that you and the others have so cogently debunked here on this forum.

      • skrekk

        What’s clear to me is that there’s a very large segment of Ron & Rand Paul fans who know virtually nothing about the legislation these two guys actually support, oppose, or have authored. At best this type of Paul fan is willfully ignorant and is projecting his own beliefs onto the Pauls.

        And then there’s the other kind – the David Dukes of the world who support the Pauls because that neoconfederate ideology aligns so closely with their own.

        • Bruce94

          I find that the far-right screed that infected parts of this discussion (whether disguised as Austrian economics or more overtly neoconfederate, secessionist drivel) to be evocative of George Wallace when he famously asserted “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties.” The problem is that there is substantially more than a “dime’s worth of difference.” The difference(s) should be obvious to anyone who is not too intellectually lazy or dishonest.

  • Hans

    In regards to the upcoming budget discussion this fall it would be great if “the people” had means to withhold any salary or expenses from congress members, cabinet members, as well as the president and vice-president. There is nothing like feeling it in your own pocket that speeds up the willingness to compromise…

    Does anybody know whether this could be done ?

    • Eliza_Bee

      Don’t know the answer toyour question, but think you’re onto something.

      Remember how quickly Congress worked out a solution when sequestration cuts to the air traffic controller budget started causing flight delays? They spend a lot of time flying back & forth to DC, and it’s really about all they accomplished in the entire past session.

  • skrekk

    I don’t think public accommodations laws protect people wearing Nazi regalia, but they do protect national origin.

    The Pauls would prefer that businesses be allowed to discriminate against Germans, Jews, gays and blacks alike.

  • Will

    I never said I liked GW Bush, and I voted for Obama, so you stick your comment. After two terms, I don’t see the improvements. I think both parties have major problems, and they virtually block any “third party” from breaking their holy power alliance. If you can’t see the issue objectively that both parties are at fault, you are blind.

    • JobExperience

      One party: Same paymasters.

  • FWalus

    The lefties scream “racist” in the same manner that their brethren in the old Soviet Union shouted “enemy of the people” – to show their fealty to the system and to make themselves feel superior to SOMEBODY. Rather than just engage in ad hominem, the lefties should put up any evidence they have that their hearts are purer than the ones they call “racist”.

    • Duras

      As white man who grew up in the South, I have met a lot of racist people, from bigots to people who just can’t see the other in the self, and rarely were they democrats. Sorry, but unless you are a rich republican voting for your own economic interests, you most likely need to let the color thing go and stop voting yourself into a retirement without pensions and social security.

      • J__o__h__n

        That is untrue and unfair to people who vote Republican despite it not being in their economic interest. They don’t just vote on race. They also vote against women and gays. The election of Obama is proof that racism is over. He just didn’t happen to win the states that are perceived as racist.

        • Duras

          Certainly, abortion and gay marriage is an attractive wedge issue because it entails controlling other people’s bodies. But as you can already tell by this comment, those people you are attracted to controlling other bodies are not exactly in the same ideological lens as those you see the other in the self.

      • marquisdesloth

        Clinton pilford your social security, brainwashed democrat

        • Duras

          If you read the history of my comments, you would see that I hate Clinton. I bet you can see me backhand Clinton on this very thread. Try not to see people through preconceptions.

  • J__o__h__n

    Is “bias liberal media” like “Democrat party”?

  • marquisdesloth

    You people on this echo chamber love it when Obama kills brown children in the Middle East. You people on this echo chamber loves Obma’s expansion of Bush’s wars.
    You love Obama’s expansion of Bush’s police state.
    We didnt you love Bush adn much as Obama? Because you have been trained since you were a child to ra-ra for your home team and turn a blind eye to the murder of children with drones and a growing police state. You are as bad as the reps. You are as bad as the Germans people in Hitler’s Germany. Do the world a favor ands Kill yourself!

    • jefe68

      Ah Goodwin’s law has made it on this thread.
      I’m surprised it did not happen sooner.
      And this nonsensical comment has 3 likes as well.
      Sad really.

  • fun bobby

    perhaps you need to take a break for a while

    • jefe68

      I was thinking the same thing about you.

      • fun bobby

        oh jefe another non-sequitor

        • jefe68

          You should talk.

          • fun bobby

            oh jefe did someone piss in your cornflakes?

          • jefe68

            Nope. I just don’t like your lame ass act.

          • fun bobby

            that’s sad jefe, good thing you have a vote down button

  • fun bobby

    this graphic breaks down what liberty activists support as opposed to the party lines

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=429583194025&set=pb.59641979025.-2207520000.1375908654.&type=3&theater

  • Shark2007

    To bad you couldn’t read what I wrote. I never claimed that TR or Eisenhower were Libertarians, only that they were Republicans. Republican has not equaled Libertarian in historical terms and as many have pointed out is still not the case today, in spite of the efforts to make that the case by the Koch brothers and their like.

  • Potter

    I disagree regarding liberties. Economic and civil liberties are NOT two sides of the same coin however good that may sound. If you think about it, economic liberties in fact may infringe on civil liberties and need to be restricted because of that. In other words civil liberties may ( DO) TRUMP economic liberties. For instance we have the right to breathe clean air and companies do not have the right to pollute to make profits.

    I could go on- but you get the point I hope.

    And just who is going to be able to make sure that we breath clean air? Those who are interested in profits mainly or only?

    That’s your government. That’s the people collectively– that is not your enemy.

    • Potter

      to xori624 below:

      You solve the civil liberties and economic conflict by using your government who employs the courts and make the laws. Your tax money. Usually the rest of the time we DO assume you have liberties in both business and civilly except when there are clashes. Through these clashes this is how our country and government has grown. But since Reagan who said “it’s your money, you should have it” this idea, that the government is taking from you and that you don’t have to pay for it, is toxic. It’s a toxic destructive idea that we are all individuals that do not depend on our collective, don’t need government and that government is the enemy.

      Your roads, airports, ports, your schools, your/our Center for Disease Control, indeed the research that became the internet that you are on, etc etc, etc., never mind your basic protection/security is what YOU use and benefit from to take part in this country You should pay for it and not freeload. The someone else you are giving money to is YOURSELF, YOUR government. I don’t understand either the notion that people who are sick/handicapped and poor and old should not be helped by government. Do you step over them in the streets on your way? Do you never get old or sick or unemployed yourself?

      This is “promoting the general welfare” as in the US Constitution!

      You OWE your government. If you don’t like what it is doing, then VOTE and demonstrate. You have the civil liberty to do so.

  • Shark2007

    That must be why Hayek retired from the field.

  • TJPhoto40

    I hope the ranting psychos who seem to have come out of the woodwork to spew hatred and delusional phobias within this blog aren’t cause for it being shut down. It’s pretty disturbing what some people are venting on here–a kind of violent madness often combined with poor spelling and grammar (ouch!). If something is both off-topic and dripping with bile, maybe a moderator is needed for establishing at least a bit of civility again.

  • sammy13

    If nothing else, Rand Paul is consistently honest, to a fault. He doesn’t mince words, change his view to appeal/pander to a particular group. His views on life and the gay lifestyle are rooted in his belief in the Bible; I don’t recall him being accused of discrimination of any kind. And some of his views or answers while rankling some and appealing to others can both hurt and help him. Honesty does that; it is a double edged sword.

  • Duras

    I absolutely agree that there are racist democrats. But there is a difference. Republican politicians actively use racial scapegoating rhetoric and they attract a far more tyrannical, far less cosmopolitan electorate.
    Liberalism is a different than “democrat,” as is conservative from “republican.” To me, half this country is democrat; somewhere between 25% to 15% of democrats are liberals.

  • Judigirl

    I liked a lot of what Rand Paul said, policy-wise. It was too bad that he was so defensive and dismissive on some of the questions posed to him, as these were real concerns of many voters. This is an exciting candidate because he appears to have serious solutions, especially regarding the national debt, but I would be reluctant to vote for him as president because based on this interview, he seems to have a short temper which would be highly problematic for a president managing important foreign relationships. Perhaps he is best left as a senator.

    • Shark2007

      What serious solutions other than doing away with government regulations and leaving us all to the mercy of the corporations and the few rich that control them.

  • Shark2007

    Asserting that every economic bubble was caused by government regulation does not make it true. The idea of the “free market” plays a similar role in economics as the idea of “friction free mechanics” in physics, except less so.

  • Potter

    to xori624:

    We solve the civil liberties and economic conflict by using your government who employs the courts and make the laws. Your tax money. Usually the rest of the time we DO assume you have liberties in both business and civilly except when there are clashes. Through these clashes this is how our country and government has grown. But since Reagan who said “it’s your money, you should have it” this idea, that the government is taking from you and that you don’t have to pay for it, is toxic. It’s a toxic destructive idea that we are all individuals that do not depend on our collective, don’t need government and that government is the enemy.

    Your roads, airports, ports, your schools, your/our Center for Disease Control, indeed the research that became the internet that you are on, etc etc, etc., never mind your basic protection/security is what YOU use and benefit from to take part in this country You should pay for it and not freeload. The someone else you are giving money to is YOURSELF, YOUR government. I don’t understand either the notion that people who are sick/handicapped and poor and old should not be helped by government. Do you step over them in the streets on your way? Do you never get old or sick or unemployed yourself?

    This is “promoting the general welfare” as in the US Constitution!

    You OWE your government. If you don’t like what it is doing, then VOTE and demonstrate. You have the civil liberty to do so.

  • seethingsclearly

    Thank you very much indeed for your kind
    comments. It’s gratifying to know that
    some people find the ideas worth ruminating about, even if many others object
    to the tone and thereby avoid debating on their merits the points
    raised.

    • Ralph Demers

      But you’ve set a very high standard))) I expect more from you, mostly because I agree but also you write so well it’s a pleasure.

      • seethingsclearly

        Dear Mr. Demers: I don’t know if you will see my response here, since the thread has grown so much and these comments are far down on the list, but I wish to thank you again for your sincere praise. Good social criticism and good writing ought to go together. I have been greatly influenced by such critics as Ferdinand Lundberg (“The Rich and the Super-Rich”) and Thomas Frank (“Pity the BIllionaire”), both of whose erudition and wit I admire enormously. Lundberg in particular influenced me a lot in my younger days. (I’m a Boston resident who grew up in NYC, a working-class guy who’s over sixty.) I do believe that satire and humor are important in such writing. From time to time I weigh in on issues raised by OnPoint, so I do hope
        we cross paths in the future. I will look forward to reading your own
        contributions. Again, many thanks.

    • Ralph Demers

      You might want to hyphenize your nick, it gives the impression you’re very angry, seething LOL (joking)

  • StilllHere

    Please file under guilt by association: A
    federal grand jury yesterday indicted Quinshaunta Golden — a onetime top aide
    to Dr. Eric Whitaker, one of President Barack Obama’s closest friends — on
    bribery, theft and fraud charges, accusing her of embezzling about $433,000 in
    Illinois state health department funds.

    • jefe68

      Wow, people who know other people do bad things.
      The bottom feeder returns.

  • Potter

    There is plenty wrong with crony capitalism, don’t know how you get rid of it. Nothing wrong with a some socialism though it seem to have become a bad word like ‘liberal” ( Obama is or was accused of being a “socialist”). And of course there is plenty wrong with fascist thinking which I associate with Republicans more than Democrats these days…

    Special interest abode on both sides of this argument I agree.

  • skrekk

    Running a hot dog stand doesn’t usually run the risk of blinding your customers.

  • skrekk

    >>>>Operating on people’s eyes WITH accreditation can also cause blindness.

    That’s why ethical ophthalmologists get tested and certified through the ABO, along with their continuing education programs.

    Rand Paul’s “certification” provides none of that.

  • skrekk

    In related news, it looks like Ron Paul was bribing Iowa officials to endorse him during the 2012 campaign:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-state-senator-allegedly-sought-payments-to-back-ron-paul-in-2012/2013/08/07/37881e4c-ffb5-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html

    [State Sen. Kent Sorenson wanted to be paid $8,000 a month through the fall of 2012 and receive a $100,000 donation for his leadership PAC, according to an e-mail that one of his associates wrote on Oct. 29, 2011, to John Tate, Paul’s campaign manager. The e-mail was published by the conservative site TheIowaRepublican.com and OpenSecrets.org, the Web site of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

    A few weeks later, a deputy campaign manager for Paul gave a $30,000 check to Sorenson’s wife, said Dennis Fusaro, a conservative activist and onetime Paul aide who went public with the allegations this week.]

    • Ed

      Not that this sort of activity is good, but every politician who campaigns hires his buddies and family and pays them unreasonably high amounts. Seems like its up to the big donors to police how their money is used and not donate if the candidate is stuffing their family’s and friends pockets.

      • skrekk

        It certainly does deflate Ron Paul’s image as being an honest player.

        Like so many other things in his persona he’s just very good at hiding it. Personally I have less of a problem with this type of corruption than I do with his very misleading statements on civil rights issues.

        • Ed

          He’s being no more or less ethical than other politicians, he’s not breaking the law (as far as I know), and I don’t think this activity qualifies as dishonest. It would have been nice if Harwood asked him about actual things he’s said and policy questions instead of focusing on tarring him for having an employee who said something stupid. But that didn’t happen.

          • skrekk

            Actually it’s a violation of Iowa Senate ethics rules for Sorenson to have taken a bribe for an endorsement, or to be paid by a presidential campaign. That’s why Sorenson is already being investigated, because he accepted bribes from Bachmann too. That’s also partly why Bachmann is being investigated by the FBI and the House ethics committee.

            Congress has a similar rule but since Ron Paul is no longer in Congress they won’t bother to investigate. However, it still might have been an FEC violation. And it does reveal Paul to be a man of poor integrity, as if anyone had any doubt about that.

  • Potter

    “Promote” and “provide” are pretty nebulous, one turning out to be the other and vice versa. Regarding the 18 enumerated powers – again nebulous enough to allow for interpretation and needs of the time.

    Centralizing power maybe be bad but it is also good. Look around.

  • Potter

    The NSA encroachment is harmful because it pits the government against citizens. But there are so many ways that the government works for the individual that it is easier to point out how it does not. The government in many many instances protects civil liberties… voting rights, discrimination in the workplace, laws to protect the handicapped, women’s rights. These and other areas have needed government intervention.The Constitution has to be a document that grows with the times and need but keeps the basic concept that all men ( and women) are created equal and have inalienable rights. We also live in a society that begs us to respect the rights of others. The government, best it can, mediates.

    If you do not want to police the world, then you have a right to vote against those who do– I would imagine that would be against what we know as Republican ( who have claimed to be strongest on defense) and their neo-con philosophy.

  • skrekk

    So you’re suggesting that a surgeon be licensed with the same scrutiny as a hot dog vendor?

    LOL…..no wonder only teabaggers vote for you guys.

  • skrekk

    Too bad with a “Rand Paul” certified doctor you have no way of knowing how much risk you’re subjecting yourself to, since he doesn’t ask and doesn’t tell.

  • jefe68

    While you’re at it how about the EPA, NASA, NOHA, the Department of Health and Human Services. The Constitution was not written to be a document stuck in the 18th century.

  • Potter

    “Look”,Asian
    AmericanPatriot, I SAID the government protects civil liberties. But the
    government needs to TAX in order to RUN. EH?
    Don’t put words in my mouth about supporting a blank check.
    Democrats have cowered shamefully before Republican claims to be strong on defense. These neo-cons and their philosophy are still around…and Obama has knuckled under.

    God help us with Rand as President though I don’t think he has a chance.. Bye.

  • SamEw

    1. In all do respect to Mr. Paul who I like in a lot of ways if you want to be a serious politician you can’t respond to critics writing in major publications as simply being ‘yahoos’. Part of the job of a politician is dealing with idiots in a deft manner which he seems incapable of.

    2. Also, it’s a joke to talk Egyptian aid without mentioning Israel. Mr. Paul knows full well the U.S. doesn’t send aid to Egypt primarily to feed people in Cairo.

  • geraldfnord

    I am saying that the protection afforded by a notional person both implies that that ‘person’ can be taxed and suggests that the shares-holders are getting something for the tax.

  • Bruce94

    You make some excellent points which I liked, but I’m less sanguine in my view of right-wing, academic ideologues whose libertarianism often proceeds from what I view as ahistorical, anti-empirical roots which they cling to like faith-based dogma in the face of undeniable facts. You state that you don’t believe their resistance to the preponderance of evidence is “willful,” but I think in many ways their arcane logic is more menacing than the outbursts of the neoconfederate, pro-secessionist yahoos that Paul and his ilk naturally attract. They give this right-wing populism an intellectual frame and air of respectability that an extremist ideology based on hyper individualism, rabid consumerism, and unregulated rapacious capitalism does not merit.

    It also indulges the false equivalencies and false dichotomies that such extremism uses to polarize people and poison the discourse. A few examples:

    –We must choose between a “free” market economy or a planned economy when in fact the concept of a “mixed” economy more accurately describes the reality before us.

    –We must choose between capitalism and socialism, when the choice is really the extent to which we use government to address the inevitable failures of the market that you and others have aptly described emanating from monopoly power, wealth concentration, income inequality, information asymmetry, globalization and the race to the bottom, structural unemployment due to technical innovation and unfair foreign competition, and perverse incentives as well as negative externalities operating in certain markets, most notably in the medical and energy sectors.

    Implicit in the foregoing is the urgent need to expand the government’s role in supporting basic research, education, health, infrastructure, safety-net as well as social insurance programs–public investments that clearly enabled the rapid growth of our economy and expansion of the middle-class especially in the latter half of the 20th century, which most libertarians on this forum would no doubt disagree with.

    The laissez-faire libertarians would have us return to a yearned-for (often imaginary) bygone era that existed, if at all, in an agrarian, pre-industrial society where most people lived in wide-open spaces and had little use for big government, unlike contemporary American society where most of us live in cities or metropolitan areas in which more, not less, is expected from government. It’s also worth noting that those who tend to yearn for a return to this libertarian paradise, do not tend to belong to those groups whose lands were stolen or who were enslaved, oppressed or marginalized as part of the process of creating the vast wealth that some of us now enjoy more than others.

    The fact that the US has operated successfully somewhere on a continuum between these seems to alkl

  • Bruce94

    You make some excellent points which I liked, but I’m less sanguine in my view of right-wing, academic ideologues whose libertarianism often proceeds from what I view as ahistorical, anti-empirical roots which they cling to like faith-based dogma in the face of undeniable facts. You state that you don’t believe their resistance to the preponderance of evidence is “willful,” but I think in many ways their arcane logic is more menacing than the outbursts of the neoconfederate, pro-secessionist yahoos that Paul and his ilk naturally attract. They give this right-wing populism an intellectual frame and air of respectability that an extremist ideology based on hyper individualism, rabid consumerism, and unregulated rapacious capitalism does not merit.

    It also indulges the false equivalencies and false dichotomies that are employed by such extremists to polarize people and poison the discourse. A few examples:

    –We must choose between a “free” market economy or a planned economy when in fact the concept of a “mixed” economy more accurately describes the reality before us.

    –We must choose between capitalism and socialism, when the choice is really the extent to which we use government to address the inevitable failures of the market that you and others have aptly described emanating from monopoly power, wealth concentration, income inequality, information asymmetry, globalization and the race to the bottom, structural unemployment due to technical innovation and unfair foreign competition, and perverse incentives as well as negative externalities operating in certain markets, most notably in the medical and energy sectors.

    Implicit in the foregoing is the urgent need to expand the government’s role in supporting basic research, education, health, infrastructure, safety-net as well as social insurance programs–public investments that clearly enabled the rapid growth of our economy and expansion of the middle-class especially in the latter half of the 20th century, which most libertarians on this forum would no doubt dispute.

    The laissez-faire libertarians would have us return to a yearned-for (often imaginary) bygone era that existed, if at all, in an agrarian, pre-industrial society where most people lived in wide-open spaces and had little use for big government, unlike contemporary American society where most of us live in cities or metropolitan areas in which more, not less, is expected from government. It’s also worth noting that those who tend to yearn for a return to this libertarian paradise, do not tend to belong to those groups whose lands were stolen or who were enslaved, oppressed or marginalized as part of the process of creating the vast wealth that some of us now enjoy more than others.

  • Bruce94

    You make excellent points which I liked, but I’m less
    sanguine than you are about the right-wing, academic ideologues like those at the Cato Institute whose libertarianism seems rooted in ahistorical and
    anti-empirical attitudes which I find as insidious as the refusal of politicians like Paul to acknowledge the inherent flaws in the way many of our markets work. These academics provide an undeserved intellectual frame and air of respectability for the neoconfederate,
    pro-secessionist yahoos predisposed to the extreme ideology of the Pauls and their ilk—an ideology that promotes hyper individualism, rabid consumerism and
    unregulated rapacious capitalism.

    To the extent that they reinforce artificial categorical and stereotypical thinking (i.e. false equivalencies or dichotomies) they undermine the public discourse. A few examples:

    –“We must choose between a ‘free’ market economy or a ‘planned’ economy when in reality what we have before us is an evolved ‘mixed’ economy.

    –“We must embrace capitalism or socialism” or “a growing welfare state is tantamount to creeping
    socialism” when the real question before us is to what extent going forward will we adopt the social investments and state interventions that have proven
    effective in the past preventing market failures or mitigating their effects.

    The arcane logic of libertarianism denies the historical
    evidence of effective government intervention dealing with some of the most egregious market failures that you and others have cited and that are associated
    with monopoly power, wealth concentration, income inequality, information asymmetry, free trade and the race to the bottom as well as perverse incentives
    and negative externalities (especially those found in our medical and energy markets). Libertarians acknowledges neither the efficacy of past government responses to these problems nor the utility of
    public investments in research, education, health and infrastructure that fueled the rapid growth of our economy and middle-class expansion in the latter
    half of the 20th century. Libertarians see these advances as examples of collectivism encroaching on individual liberty rather what they are—examples of government enhancing individual autonomy and mobility.

    The true libertarian believers seek to restore a yearned-for, idyllic (often imaginary) bygone era, which if it ever existed at all, occurred in an agrarian, pre-industrial society where people lived in wide open spaces and had little use for government—not at all like contemporary society where most of us live in cities or metropolitan areas in which more, not less, is expected from government. And as we approach the 100th anniversary of the March on Washington, I think it’s timely to point out that those who wish to return to this mythical libertarian paradise tend not to be from groups whose lands were stolen or who were slaughtered, enslaved, oppressed or otherwise marginalized as part of the process for building
    our nation and creating a vast wealth that some of us now enjoy much more than others or at the expense of others.

    • red_donn

      Bruce, my apologies for the late response – I’ve been rather pressed for time lately and your comment deserved a reply with a degree of thought.

      First, my compliments to your rather comprehensive critique of the failings of the standard libertarian position. I should say that when I don’t believe the academics are willfully negligent, I meant it not in the sense of stubborness, but a lack of malevolence on their part. I find that many people with a bone to pick with libertarians begin by accusing them of being in the pockets of big business, rather than engaging in an economic debate.
      In a defense of the libertarian position, one must always remember that government is so often on the side of capital interests and, when it is not, it is often a bungling and inept helper for the working man. I’ve had the unusual benefit of knowing various academics who were always remarkably apt at putting paid to the faults of various government programs. While there are those on the left who regularly complain of the faults of government, their solutions are almost always reliant on that same system. The recommendations to only remove government programs and hope that some cross between the Viking states and Industrial Revolution-age America will lead to great prosperity never ceases to amaze me. However, good recommendations for policy are lacking in every direction, so I’ll settle for some decent and much needed-criticisms of the status quo.
      I believe, in short, that the libertarian position is the only vocal and semi-intelligent critic of many of the subtler problems in government action, despite its lack of intelligent counter-propositions.
      The anarcho-socialists who characterized much of the Marxist left prior to the usurpation of Lenin were highly distrustful of government, something that the typical socio-economic liberal of today would do well to remember. It warmed my heart to see Ralph Nader and Ron Paul speaking complimentarily of each other a year or two ago, recognizing their mutual distrust of certain centralized aspects of power. The difficulty is that the followers of Paul refuse to recognize market limitations in the present real-world and those of Nader forget that government is the cause of many problems.

  • ExcellentNews

    Libertarian – Someone who, having read Ayn Rand, realizes that the main purpose of government is to protect and maximize the liberties of as many people as possible.

    Republican – Someone who has not read Ayn Rand (too many pages in dem books, you know…) but realizes that her name is a useful label to bandy about while trying to collect enough votes.

    If YOU have read “Atlas Shrugged”, you would know that the enemy in that book was not so much the government, but the oligarchic corporations (the old railroads in the book) who were in bed with government, and whose executives did every dirty trick they could to fill their pockets and preserve their privilege.
    This is so very relevant for our country today, gutted by a small club of global oligarchs and bankers with the complicity of the Republican establishment (first ruling with Bush as figurehead, then blocking any true reform by Obama).

    Back to libertarianism, the answer is simple. You CANNOT be a Libertarian and have ANY ASSOCIATION with the Republican party and the shadowy PACS that fund it.

    • Shark2007

      The Libertarian ideal and the Communist ideal are both unrealizable because the are incompatible with the way humans interact in their societies.

      • Government_Banking_Serf
        • seethingsclearly

          See my comment above regarding your response to what I wrote about Libertarianism being “rampant egotism.” Your blithe dismissal of those with whom you disagree followed by references to someone else’s ideas does little to further this debate.

  • seethingsclearly

    Libertarianism is rampant egotism dressed up in pseudo-intellectual garb. As long as libertarianism continues
    to come down squarely on the side of the rich and powerful regarding how wealth is created and distributed, it will remain actively detrimental to the interests of the majority of people, here and elsewhere. Ayn Rand, self-identified as a lover of individual freedom, was in fact a remorseless cult leader, a fanatic who exercised totalitarian-like control over her minions (highly ironic, considering she escaped from a totalitarian state). Numerous examples prove this point, chief among them the shameful way in which she treated her onetime principal disciple, Nathaniel Branden. “Atlas Shrugged,” the libertarian bible, has rightfully been panned by knowledgeable literary critics as a prolix and turgid piece of writing that manages to extol – in an utterly humorless fashion, to boot – both unbridled greed and self-pity as the highest virtues.

    We do not live in an Ayn Rand novel. We live in a world that cries out for genuine action to achieve economic justice. Libertarianism offers instead simple-minded pap masquerading as serious thought. NPR and other news outlets, instead of affording platforms for people like Rand Paul to broadcast their hubris, should invite principled critics and authentic philosophers on their show to debate those who hold libertarian views and thereby demonstrate how defective this supposedly deep system of thought really is.

    • Government_Banking_Serf

      “As long as libertarianism continuesto come down squarely on the side of the rich and powerful regarding how wealth is created and distributed, it will remain actively detrimental to the interests of the majority of people”

      As long as? When has it been in play?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=nkcY7SVBG-4&nomobile=1

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/americas-libertarian-moment/278785/

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=relmfu&v=bYkl3XlEneA&nomobile=1

      • seethingsclearly

        In case you missed seeing my answer to what you wrote in the OnPoint blog section regarding the Rand Paul broadcast, I will repeat it now, with some editing for clarity, since it applies here as well.

        I think your responses would be much more useful to a genuine debate on this important issue if you let us in on what it is you really think and stopped merely presenting the views of other people as your only contribution. While I am certainly in favor of quoting others, it seems obvious to me that it’s better to present an argument in your own words at first and then include someone else’s ideas afterward to bolster your own, rather than merely referring readers to someone else. It makes you seem intellectually lazy and perhaps somewhat arrogant. If you can’t or won’t take the time to make your case in your own words, why expect someone whom you are trying to persuade to take the time and trouble to listen to the youtube videos you hold so dear? You may think references to some other authorities will lend weight to your own views, but if you depend so heavily on those other authorities to make your point so that you don’t even bother to present your own views to begin with, then why should I bother to listen to you?

  • red_donn

    Thanks very much for the links – I’m still working through my own thoughts and pre-PHD introduction to the debates regarding labor markets.

    Any site that presents me with a debate analysis right off the bat is worth my attention. Unfortunately it does look like he is a monetary or macroeconomist by training, as are most libertarian economists I know of. Despite their excellent analysis of various problems at the macro level, the more self-aware ones are generally willing to acknowledge that they have not got a proper account of various labor market critiques. I’d say that Thomas Sowell, despite his insanity regarding international affairs, has always been wonderfully skilled at deconstructing simplistic attempts at restructuring labor markets, but I haven’t yet heard him cover the concerns I have.

  • JobExperience

    He’ll kill a million born children here at home by neglect and structural violence though, if elected.

  • JobExperience

    Let him poke your peepers.

  • JobExperience

    What color white cane do you prefer?
    Since you’re probably colorblind too…

  • JobExperience

    22.5% of our population receive social security benefits that are the only thing standing between them and abject poverty. These persons are children, the frail elderly and permanently and totally disabled people. Maybe you could work some of them as slaves in a death camp but it would never be practical to pay them the prevailing wage in the current economy. Only 11 million people receive Social Security Disability benefits. We see them alot because they wander around our marketplaces out of loneliness, having formerly been accustomed to fraternizing in the workplace. The Cato institute recently argued that those on assistance fare as well or better than minimum waged fulltime workers. Even if Cato is partially mistaken, the facts they have correct suggest that this economy is a failure and that wages are too low. After all welfare has been eviscerated since Clinton sponsored “welfare to work.” Would you like it if your employer replaced you with a single mom at half your salary? That’s what you’re advocating because we’re 40 million slots short.

  • JobExperience

    People buy lots of things they don’t need or even want because of brain colonizing advertisements. Why should politics be any different? We fail to teach critical thinking and advocate conformity in school. The ideology of Capitalism is a religion with punishment for heresy. Step back and see the larger perspective and you’ll agree. Both parties are bought by the wealthy and sell defective products.

  • JobExperience

    There’s a good old blues song (and story) about the “shitbug.”
    He insisted on shooting up the bar because he needed to “do a little rolling.” That about sums up Paul’s position.

    Even more exciting is Gov. Pat McCrory (NC) who says poll watchers (if Republican) should carry unconcealed pistols inside polling places to discourage “fraud.” This suggests Paul will be rolling in the polls when he visits North Carolina.

  • JobExperience

    Happens frequently in Baltimore.

  • Shark2007

    So they take you, unconscious into the hospital and you are going to check on the qualifications of the surgeon. Also, how are people going to get access to reliable information without gov. regulation even if they have time to consider their choice?

  • Shark2007

    Perhaps you would like to share your methods of determining risk? What information sources do you use?

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

 
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment