Mr. Doherty should immediately cease using a quarter of the technological advances gained from NASA's explorations in space. Randomly, not his choice of which 25%. Similarly, if anyone is to suffer a disease which the NSF has made considerable progress towards curing/ameliorating, may it be one of his close family members. If Ebola, some other deadly virus, or a serious outbreak of food poisoning appear, he'll be the first hollering about the inefficacy of the CDC. Again, may his family be the first to suffer.
Let's shrink the EPA too, and offer the land, air, and water surrounding his backyard as the first dumping ground for the polluters.
This guy passes as an intellectual, instead of a tiresome windbag? Plenty of places with low taxes and regulations. Let's pool in for a one way ticket to Somalia for this buffoon.
Let's shrink the EPA too, and offer the land, air, and water surrounding his backyard as the first dumping ground for the polluters.
This guy passes as an intellectual, instead of a tiresome windbag? Plenty of places with low taxes and regulations. Let's pool in for a one way ticket to Somalia for this buffoon.
87
"may his family be the first to suffer"
A little mean spirited, don't you think? Do socialists have to swear off using anything developed in the private sector?
A little mean spirited, don't you think? Do socialists have to swear off using anything developed in the private sector?
8
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts."
Huh? Say what?
This, of course, is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism. With Europe, Japan, and China blasting past us in science and technology, how can cutting spending on basic research be a good thing?
Huh? Say what?
This, of course, is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism. With Europe, Japan, and China blasting past us in science and technology, how can cutting spending on basic research be a good thing?
90
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts."
I really thought that was meant to say "discredit" until I scrolled down and read the mini-blurb about the author at the end of the article. Oh, okay, I get it now. What fool wants to do away with the CDC? Or worse, wants it to be beholden to the private sector/business interests? No thanks, I'll take my CDC with a healthy dose of objectivity. A CDC funded by private money would be anything but objective.
I really thought that was meant to say "discredit" until I scrolled down and read the mini-blurb about the author at the end of the article. Oh, okay, I get it now. What fool wants to do away with the CDC? Or worse, wants it to be beholden to the private sector/business interests? No thanks, I'll take my CDC with a healthy dose of objectivity. A CDC funded by private money would be anything but objective.
50
"No thanks, I'll take my CDC with a healthy dose of objectivity. A CDC funded by private money would be anything but objective."
What about a CDC run by a lawyer and former political operative?
What about a CDC run by a lawyer and former political operative?
2
Libertarianism fails on the surface to provide competent, efficient government. This will change when we are each robo copies of one another but until then, libertarianism is only another nice word for political science majors (and those who think they are political science majors) to discuss.
.......................
Rand Paul is a nice enough individual though his comments smack of the petulant kid who owns the football but can't play the game.
..........................
Far be it from me to suggest a candidate to the Republicans but i sure as heck wouldn't nominate Rand Paul. A word to the wise.....................
.......................
Rand Paul is a nice enough individual though his comments smack of the petulant kid who owns the football but can't play the game.
..........................
Far be it from me to suggest a candidate to the Republicans but i sure as heck wouldn't nominate Rand Paul. A word to the wise.....................
13
This is the problem with so called 'libertarianism' as a political philosophy (or a problem- a big one in any case). I don't think 'x' is an appropriate function of government but I do think 'y' is. You think 'x' is an appropriate function of government but you don't think 'y' is and yet we are both libertarians. To make it more specific let's say (as a hypothetical): I don't like drug laws but I think killing the unborn is a moral crime and the government has an obligation to protect them; you think every woman should have a choice about her body and reproductive rights but feel unbridled drug use encourages marginal members of society to become even more marginal- not to mention more dangerous.
There is no precise agreement among almost any two people on the proper functions of government. The political process serves as an ongoing debate and discussion on that question. To try to wrap something as messy as the evolving normative judgments of over 300 million people up in a single word is idealistic nonsense of the worst kind- the kind that involves sloppy thinking. That is why Paul is backing off- a candidate for president has to define her or himself is a positive way not just 'against government' and once you start to clarify what parts of government you are for you will lose half of your base- which wasn't much to start with.
There is no precise agreement among almost any two people on the proper functions of government. The political process serves as an ongoing debate and discussion on that question. To try to wrap something as messy as the evolving normative judgments of over 300 million people up in a single word is idealistic nonsense of the worst kind- the kind that involves sloppy thinking. That is why Paul is backing off- a candidate for president has to define her or himself is a positive way not just 'against government' and once you start to clarify what parts of government you are for you will lose half of your base- which wasn't much to start with.
36
If drivers were strapped to the front of their vehicles, our roads would be dramatically safer. If those who exploit so ruthlessly this planet and its people were the first to suffer the results of societal and environmental degradation, we would hardly need government at all.
20
Rand Paul is not a "lukewarm libertarian". He's a lukewarm neoconservative. I don't believe he is a man of integrity like his father. Now that he wants to cut funds for the CDC & National Science Foundation in order to free up more deficit spending trillions of tax dollars for rich draft-avoiding war profiteers to conduct more unnecessary, counterproductive, morally unjustified, mass violence overseas, he's clarified things for me considerably -- Vote straight Democratic. There's no other reasonable choices.
50
Only young people rally around libertarianism, because as you get older you realize that anarchy is not a viable or desirable government system.
Except for our childish legislators in Texas, who are now set to pass an open carry bill that also prohibits law enforcement from checking the CHL status of someone carrying a holstered handgun openly. That is where you end up with libertarianism, far too far out there.
Except for our childish legislators in Texas, who are now set to pass an open carry bill that also prohibits law enforcement from checking the CHL status of someone carrying a holstered handgun openly. That is where you end up with libertarianism, far too far out there.
46
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure. That’s precisely why we need a candidate who will articulate them."
The last person who could do this was Milton Friedman, who had the distinct advantage of speaking to people who were intellectually curious. Does anyone really think libertarian ideas can be conveyed to the median voter?
Most people won't accept libertarianism because they believe violence is necessary to solve many problems which aren't caused by force or fraud. Understanding otherwise requires an education in economics most people don't have and aren't interested in. Paul is not in a position to change this.
It all comes back to a central problem which keeps democracies from working very well: voters have basically no incentive to hold rational political beliefs.
The last person who could do this was Milton Friedman, who had the distinct advantage of speaking to people who were intellectually curious. Does anyone really think libertarian ideas can be conveyed to the median voter?
Most people won't accept libertarianism because they believe violence is necessary to solve many problems which aren't caused by force or fraud. Understanding otherwise requires an education in economics most people don't have and aren't interested in. Paul is not in a position to change this.
It all comes back to a central problem which keeps democracies from working very well: voters have basically no incentive to hold rational political beliefs.
8
The reasons libertarianism appeals to the young is because they have nothing to lose. Regulation doesn't matter to a person who has nothing to regulate. Laws don't mean anything to anyone who has nothing to lose by being laid up for years and out of work. Regulations on banksters and business mean nothing to a person without investments or income.
No doubt, it looks great from where you stand. Meanwhile wait until you grow up and are looking toward healthcare or retirement.
Thank you very much. We already have plenty of people lacking any understanding or empathy in the government. We don't need another.
No doubt, it looks great from where you stand. Meanwhile wait until you grow up and are looking toward healthcare or retirement.
Thank you very much. We already have plenty of people lacking any understanding or empathy in the government. We don't need another.
32
"He does go further than other Republicans when he calls for tamping down the drug war, reforming criminal sentencing, and respecting states that have legalized marijuana.". Rand Paul is most definitely NOT a libertarian. He says that states should decide on their own marijuana laws. Real libertarians do NOT believe in states rights, ONLY in individual rights (and stirnerites not even in those). Libertarians believe it's nobody's 'damned business' (to use Paul's phraseology) what an an (adult) individual chooses to put into his or her body - be it coffee, food or ANY drug. If one has a single litmus test for defining a libertarian, it is this - the principle of self-ownership (even the non-aggression principle follows from it). Neither Rand Paul nor any other current presidential aspirant today has yet to invoke the fundamentalk libertarian principle that drugs shouldn't need to be legalized becuase no one ever had the right (they only had the power) to illegalize drugs.
3
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure. That’s precisely why we need a candidate who will articulate them. "
Precisely indeed -- what's needed is a candidate whose ridiculousness is on par with these ideals! Not to worry, though: there looks to be promise aplenty in the emerging mob of GOP "talent."
Precisely indeed -- what's needed is a candidate whose ridiculousness is on par with these ideals! Not to worry, though: there looks to be promise aplenty in the emerging mob of GOP "talent."
18
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts."
should that have read 'discredit"? What world are these people living in?
should that have read 'discredit"? What world are these people living in?
44
Look at the relationship between Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald, Bruce Fein, & Ed Snowden.
1
I share with Mr. Doherty the conviction that "Reason" must be the foundation of morality, ethics, and public policy. But I disagree with him and Ayn Rand that it is "reasonable" to ignore the fact that every individual's "self-interest" is inextricably intertwined with everybody else's self-interest! Only by doing so can one conclude that it is a GOOD idea to diminish or eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Science Foundation, NASA, public education, etc. A genuinely open, extensive and thoroughly rational discussion of "our natural rights to our lives and property" would be extremely useful for Americans. We have become accustomed to hearing that the self-interest of the Rich and Powerful (like the Libertarian Koch brothers) is somehow the genuine self-interest of all. I applaud Mr. Doherty's condemnation of Rand Paul's refusal to pursue this selfishness to its logical conclusion. While I mostly disagree with Mr. Doherty's reasoning and conclusions about public policy, at least he is consistent.
8
In my haste to post a comment, I failed to edit my remarks adequately. Please accept the following as the "official" version of my comment"
I share with Mr. Doherty the conviction that "Reason" must be the foundation of morality, ethics, and public policy. But I disagree with him and Ayn Rand that it is "reasonable" to ignore the fact that every individual's "self-interest" is inextricably intertwined with everybody else's self-interest! Only by doing so can one conclude that it is a GOOD idea to diminish or eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Science Foundation, NASA, public education, the EPA, etc. A genuinely open, extensive and thoroughly rational discussion of "our natural rights to our lives and property" and the “proper scope of government” would be extremely useful for Americans. We have become accustomed to hearing that the self-interest of the Rich and Powerful (like the Libertarian Koch brothers) is somehow the genuine self-interest of all. I applaud Mr. Doherty's condemnation of Rand Paul's refusal to pursue this selfishness to its logical conclusion. While I mostly disagree with Mr. Doherty's reasoning and conclusions about public policy, at least he is consistent.
I share with Mr. Doherty the conviction that "Reason" must be the foundation of morality, ethics, and public policy. But I disagree with him and Ayn Rand that it is "reasonable" to ignore the fact that every individual's "self-interest" is inextricably intertwined with everybody else's self-interest! Only by doing so can one conclude that it is a GOOD idea to diminish or eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Science Foundation, NASA, public education, the EPA, etc. A genuinely open, extensive and thoroughly rational discussion of "our natural rights to our lives and property" and the “proper scope of government” would be extremely useful for Americans. We have become accustomed to hearing that the self-interest of the Rich and Powerful (like the Libertarian Koch brothers) is somehow the genuine self-interest of all. I applaud Mr. Doherty's condemnation of Rand Paul's refusal to pursue this selfishness to its logical conclusion. While I mostly disagree with Mr. Doherty's reasoning and conclusions about public policy, at least he is consistent.
4
"I disagree with him and Ayn Rand that it is "reasonable" to ignore the fact that every individual's "self-interest" is inextricably intertwined with everybody else's self-interest! Only by doing so can one conclude that it is a GOOD idea to diminish or eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Science Foundation, NASA, public education, etc."
I believe it is a good idea to eliminate those programs, and I also believe our self-interest is linked to everyone else's. I can believe this, I think rationally, because I believe there are other, better, ways to provide the goods and services of Medicare, Medicaid, the CDC, the NSF, NASA, and education.
No I don't think such a change could or should happen overnight. I do believe it will happen though, as people become more and more familiar with voluntary mechanisms to provide the goods and services we are used to getting from government.
Our monkey-brains are wired by evolution to recognize politics, violence and war, but that does not mean those are the best ways to solve problems.
I believe it is a good idea to eliminate those programs, and I also believe our self-interest is linked to everyone else's. I can believe this, I think rationally, because I believe there are other, better, ways to provide the goods and services of Medicare, Medicaid, the CDC, the NSF, NASA, and education.
No I don't think such a change could or should happen overnight. I do believe it will happen though, as people become more and more familiar with voluntary mechanisms to provide the goods and services we are used to getting from government.
Our monkey-brains are wired by evolution to recognize politics, violence and war, but that does not mean those are the best ways to solve problems.
3
One of the fundamental problems with American libertarianism is encapsulated in the expression “America’s government” (singular) used in the article. America doesn't have one government, it has many governments: the federal government, 50 pseudo-independent state governments, and other governments at county, city, and territorial levels. Yet American libertarians generally focus their complaints on only one of these—the federal government—while constantly working to increase the power and scope of state and local governments. This is philosophical hogwash. In my opinion, today's American libertarianism is nothing more than a descendant of the pro-slavery, anti-federal tradition that has led to things like the first US confederacy, state sovereignty, nullification, the second US confederacy, the Civil War, and segregation. No matter what name you give it, it's a tradition that has bedeviled and obstructed our nation from before it was even born and we would be a better nation today had it never started.
13
Your libertarianism taken to extreme, leads us back to anarchy. Don't forget that free labor interests controlling the Republican party t
financed President Lincoln's campaigns. The No-Nothings of the North, an anti- immigrant libertarian wing, also assisted the abolitionists and underground railroad. Early libertarianism opposed slavery; and their leader used federal power to defeat a league of states opposed to its authority. Many present day libertarians miss the paradox of the Confederacy fighting for white supremacy and state power against our Bill of Rights equal protection for individuals from state tyranny. Principles of our Declaration of Independence opposed the basis of the slavocracy.
financed President Lincoln's campaigns. The No-Nothings of the North, an anti- immigrant libertarian wing, also assisted the abolitionists and underground railroad. Early libertarianism opposed slavery; and their leader used federal power to defeat a league of states opposed to its authority. Many present day libertarians miss the paradox of the Confederacy fighting for white supremacy and state power against our Bill of Rights equal protection for individuals from state tyranny. Principles of our Declaration of Independence opposed the basis of the slavocracy.
3
Libertarianism carried to its logical conclusion will get us to Somalia. I don't want to go there.
33
The current state that Somalia is in is the result of a failure of a socialist government, not the result of a libertarian government.
5
the election is over one and a half years away. Wake me up next summer. Sick of reading about it .
8
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts." And how much will he cut from the Defense Department? And how much will he reduce freebies to big business? Not at all, presumably.
15
"And how much will he cut from the Defense Department?"
This is one of the areas in which Paul has made libertarians start to criticize him. He used to be in favor of cutting Defense, but he knows no one can get the GOP nomination if they even hint at wanting to slow down the rate of increase on defense spending, let alone to cut it. He recently proposed an increase while simultaneously proposing offsetting cuts that he knew would be deal-breakers.
He may have been trying to make a point, but it's a little bit hard to see where he's trying to go, and this is why libertarians are starting to have problems with him.
This is one of the areas in which Paul has made libertarians start to criticize him. He used to be in favor of cutting Defense, but he knows no one can get the GOP nomination if they even hint at wanting to slow down the rate of increase on defense spending, let alone to cut it. He recently proposed an increase while simultaneously proposing offsetting cuts that he knew would be deal-breakers.
He may have been trying to make a point, but it's a little bit hard to see where he's trying to go, and this is why libertarians are starting to have problems with him.
6
When we have a society without snake-oil salesfolks, when we have bankers who no longer lie and deceive, when we have legislaters who promote the interests of their constituencies rather than their donors,( how much further would you like me to go?), then we can enoy the more limited government so enthusiastically supported by Brian Doherty
16
"when we have legislaters who promote the interests of their constituencies rather than their donors"
That's the circumstance under which you want to *limit* government, is when the legislators promote the interests of their constituencies rather then themselves and their cronies? Until then, you believe corrupt legislators need to be given ever more money and power to play with?
A central tenet of libertarianism is that power should be taken *away* from corrupt politicians!
That's the circumstance under which you want to *limit* government, is when the legislators promote the interests of their constituencies rather then themselves and their cronies? Until then, you believe corrupt legislators need to be given ever more money and power to play with?
A central tenet of libertarianism is that power should be taken *away* from corrupt politicians!
3
There is no such thing as Libertarianism.
NO. SUCH. THING.
NO. SUCH. THING.
11
Liberals don't understand libertarian thinking or economics [Austrian School] and are not interested in learning about it.
That it is not for more federal power, and more state coercion, is enough for them to know that they hate it - because nowadays, the Left is primarily about forcing people to do things via government power, whether or not the Constitution provides for it.
Expect more of the same from the Left, and the same coddling of the religious right from the GOP.
That it is not for more federal power, and more state coercion, is enough for them to know that they hate it - because nowadays, the Left is primarily about forcing people to do things via government power, whether or not the Constitution provides for it.
Expect more of the same from the Left, and the same coddling of the religious right from the GOP.
3
Please don't suggest that Austrians are the only school of libertarian economic thought. There are certainly others, e.g. Chicagoans (Milton then David Friedman), GMU, etc.
1
That you treat "libertarian thinking and economics" as neatly synonymous with "Austrian School" thought and economics reveals the superficiality of your own learning on the subject.
9
I was a registered Libertarian for 10 years and I respectfully disagree. However, true Libertarians are not just economic libertarians as Mr. Doherty's article seems to indicate. They're for personal liberty too. That would mean ending the drug laws. It would mean ending abortion restrictions and limits on birth control. It would get the government at all levels out of the business of legislating who can and can't get married. Neither of the Pauls support any of these liberties--which is why I refuse to call either of them a Libertarian.
The problem is that few people, including me, want to take this to its logical conclusion because that would mean no laws about anything. So it would be legal to starve your kids to death. To kill your neighbor over any spat. To drive unsafe cars completely loaded out of your mind. Because that's not really a functional society, most people want some limits. We simply disagree on which ones. Unlike the Pauls, most Libertarians draw the line at the government controlling our private lives and snooping on us all to do it. If more people knew this, I predict Rand would lose any and all Libertarian support.
The problem is that few people, including me, want to take this to its logical conclusion because that would mean no laws about anything. So it would be legal to starve your kids to death. To kill your neighbor over any spat. To drive unsafe cars completely loaded out of your mind. Because that's not really a functional society, most people want some limits. We simply disagree on which ones. Unlike the Pauls, most Libertarians draw the line at the government controlling our private lives and snooping on us all to do it. If more people knew this, I predict Rand would lose any and all Libertarian support.
12
I am highly suspect of any "ism" as all forms advocate extreme points of views, inherently oppose contrarian concepts and doom compromises, the essence of democracy.
Of Mr. Paul's shortcomings Doherty deplores, he takes exception on Paul's intended budget cuttings, stating "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20% from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62%, and taking a 25% chunk out of NASA, among other cuts." Do Doherty and Paul have any idea of the consequences of this? The most successful economic endeavors of the US after WWII are the consequence of Federal support for the sciences and technology, the lack of bipartisan support of which (you guess by which party) over the last few decades has contributed to a significantly diminished US leadership in these sectors. Slashing 60 plus percent of the NSF support would create thousands of unemployed scientists and academics, atrophy the science and technology student body and deplete the already tight supply of technology professionals needed to staff America's technology sector. And why only slash NASA by 25%? Are only the weather satellites at risk, or do we include the solar satellites, the observatories or even the space station as well? Perhaps Paul would spare the NIH, after all he is an ophthalmologist, but apparently not an appreciator of the role of the physical sciences in sustaining American leadership and National security.
Of Mr. Paul's shortcomings Doherty deplores, he takes exception on Paul's intended budget cuttings, stating "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20% from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62%, and taking a 25% chunk out of NASA, among other cuts." Do Doherty and Paul have any idea of the consequences of this? The most successful economic endeavors of the US after WWII are the consequence of Federal support for the sciences and technology, the lack of bipartisan support of which (you guess by which party) over the last few decades has contributed to a significantly diminished US leadership in these sectors. Slashing 60 plus percent of the NSF support would create thousands of unemployed scientists and academics, atrophy the science and technology student body and deplete the already tight supply of technology professionals needed to staff America's technology sector. And why only slash NASA by 25%? Are only the weather satellites at risk, or do we include the solar satellites, the observatories or even the space station as well? Perhaps Paul would spare the NIH, after all he is an ophthalmologist, but apparently not an appreciator of the role of the physical sciences in sustaining American leadership and National security.
21
The most profound economic success since WWII has undoubtedly been in computer science and engineering. While some of that progress has come from some initial government programs (e.g. ARPANET), most of it has not, and it'd be quite ignorant to think that voluntary society would not have created those technologies which were initially funded by government (e.g. packet-switched networking).
Federal funding of the sciences has been increasing for decades, even after adjusting for inflation. Sure its dropped recently during the Great Recession, but that is more of a consequence of the recession than any long-term policy.
Federal funding of the sciences has been increasing for decades, even after adjusting for inflation. Sure its dropped recently during the Great Recession, but that is more of a consequence of the recession than any long-term policy.
2
Under the spotlight the mystique of Libertarianism withers. The practicality was never there. In office Paul would just join forces with the cliché-plagued free market Republicans.
17
All you folks who say libertarianism was fine for an agrarian society, or that it's no good for governing...fine. But if you want a more robust government, do it right. Amend the constitution, or push for a ConCon. Because like it or not, the Constitution is a libertarian document that severely limits the power of the federal government. Which means that all of you Republican ("rule of law") folks and all of you Democrat ("majority rules") folks are hypocrites. If the constitution, which was ratified by majorities, isn't followed, then there IS no rule of law.
1
The thought of a conservative being president is scary. The thought of a libertarian being president is terrifying. I don't know what to think of Rand Paul.
7
It's pretty clear that Rand Paul is really no libertarian at all. He says the government should respect states which have legalized marijuana, but what a libertarian would say is more like, we should legalize marijuana for all usage on the Federal level, and schedule legalization of just about all other drugs. He's anti-abortion (I notice the column missed this bit), and a real libertarian would have to be completely pro-choice. He wants cuts for tiny, underfunded federal agencies which produce real, important things, like the CDC and NASA, but he doesn't mention the vast waste in our Defense department (where most of all taxes go), or how overpaid Congress is.
Basically Rand Paul isn't a libertarian, seems to have no core values, and should be brushed off as a useless sycophant of the Koch bros and their ilk.
Basically Rand Paul isn't a libertarian, seems to have no core values, and should be brushed off as a useless sycophant of the Koch bros and their ilk.
15
"Rand Paul isn't a libertarian"
That's true. He's a Republican, like his father. The phrase "libertarian-leaning" has been used, however, and not entirely unfairly . . .
That's true. He's a Republican, like his father. The phrase "libertarian-leaning" has been used, however, and not entirely unfairly . . .
I thought that a true Libertarian would allow women the right to control their reproductive lives without intrusive government interference.
Paul fails that test or perhaps are Libertarian ideals only for men?
Paul fails that test or perhaps are Libertarian ideals only for men?
22
If you are referring to abortion, this is a question which has divided Libertarians at least since the early 1970's. It all hinges on the individual Libertarian's viewpoint on when human life begins, something which is not subject to scientific proof since there is no definition of human to test against. Obviously, the right of a human to live is the most basic right there is, but what defines human?
If you are referring to contraception, then you will find no argument among Libertarians, who fully support any person's right to make such decisions without intervention from the government.
If you are referring to contraception, then you will find no argument among Libertarians, who fully support any person's right to make such decisions without intervention from the government.
2
Libertarianism has become a bastion for racists and anti intellectuals who really want to be intellectuals. Before it was nothing but a bunch of paranoid people who don't comprehend the freedoms provided by a civilized society, one with rules and laws. That they appeal to a few more people now is evidence of how gullible people can be.
17
what an amazing level of ignorance.
1
Paul is a LINO- libertarian in name only. If elected he'll support the status quo, unlike his dad who has the real libertarian cred. If Ron Paul were elected back in 2012 calls for his impeachment would ave begun early on in his tenure as he tried to change the system.
As democrats and republicans both support huge government with distracting sideshow squabbles at best over cultural issues- gays, guns and god, the American public again really has no choice when it comes to effecting positive change and public accountability at the Federal level. Big government supports itself and is beholden to the 1% with big money.
As democrats and republicans both support huge government with distracting sideshow squabbles at best over cultural issues- gays, guns and god, the American public again really has no choice when it comes to effecting positive change and public accountability at the Federal level. Big government supports itself and is beholden to the 1% with big money.
2
Let the in-fighting begin!
Not free-market enough. Not non-aggression enough. Etc. & etc.
Incrementally, the federal, state, and local governments USA morphed into the semi-oppressive behemoths that they are today. Only incrementally, can freedoms and liberties be taken back. Rand is pretty good, and the only candidate on the liberty side of the liberty/control scale.
For the future's sake, don't dilute his strength. Remember, only through the poison spewed by Ralph Nader, was George W. Bush elected.
Not free-market enough. Not non-aggression enough. Etc. & etc.
Incrementally, the federal, state, and local governments USA morphed into the semi-oppressive behemoths that they are today. Only incrementally, can freedoms and liberties be taken back. Rand is pretty good, and the only candidate on the liberty side of the liberty/control scale.
For the future's sake, don't dilute his strength. Remember, only through the poison spewed by Ralph Nader, was George W. Bush elected.
3
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans?"
Yes, they do. And rightly so. Libertarianism is political smoke-and-mirrors. It might be a philosophy that works in a city-state or on a similarly small scale. As a philosophy for governing a modern nation-state of 350 million it is pure nonsense, since it effectively advocates governing without a government.
The global problems of climate change and healthcare and inequality all require active interventions by governments to be addressed properly. They cannot begin to be handled by the hands-off libertarian approach, such as it is.
Yes, they do. And rightly so. Libertarianism is political smoke-and-mirrors. It might be a philosophy that works in a city-state or on a similarly small scale. As a philosophy for governing a modern nation-state of 350 million it is pure nonsense, since it effectively advocates governing without a government.
The global problems of climate change and healthcare and inequality all require active interventions by governments to be addressed properly. They cannot begin to be handled by the hands-off libertarian approach, such as it is.
28
"As a philosophy for governing a modern nation-state of 350 million it is pure nonsense, since it effectively advocates governing without a government."
You are correct that it is not a good philosophy for governing and expanding a gigantic Empire. Personally, I would rather live in a free city-state than a gigantic Empire, but that's just me . . .
You are correct that it is not a good philosophy for governing and expanding a gigantic Empire. Personally, I would rather live in a free city-state than a gigantic Empire, but that's just me . . .
1
"it effectively advocates governing without a government"
No, it advocates having the government act as a neutral referee among freely consenting citizens, enforcing the agreed upon rules rather than making them.
No, it advocates having the government act as a neutral referee among freely consenting citizens, enforcing the agreed upon rules rather than making them.
1
No, it advocates having the (theoretically accountable) government look the other way (or worse) when inherently more powerful parties frame their private coercions as neutral agreements among freely consenting citizens.
The results of this way of this way of thinking are already all around us. Liberty for whom?
The results of this way of this way of thinking are already all around us. Liberty for whom?
2
You say "to Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA." Why should we reduce the rate of medical and scientific progress? And this is the guy you don't think is radical enough? I don't see how someone with an even nuttier libertarian position is going to achieve the goal of eliminating government excess.
There are indeed valid questions about what we spend and why, and when and why we get involved in foreign entanglements, and nobody can honestly claim that government spending can't be wasteful. But these must be addressed through rational discussion and reform of a political system that encourages pork barrel politics and favors for corporate campaign contributors. The decisions of some (not all) of the country's founders, who lived in an agrarian 18th-century society, do not necessarily apply to the world's most powerful nation in an era of industrialization, jet travel, and nuclear weapons.
There are indeed valid questions about what we spend and why, and when and why we get involved in foreign entanglements, and nobody can honestly claim that government spending can't be wasteful. But these must be addressed through rational discussion and reform of a political system that encourages pork barrel politics and favors for corporate campaign contributors. The decisions of some (not all) of the country's founders, who lived in an agrarian 18th-century society, do not necessarily apply to the world's most powerful nation in an era of industrialization, jet travel, and nuclear weapons.
11
It is unfortunate that so many readers, presumably intelligent people, take this column as a cue to reflexively attack libertarian ideals. They ignore the larger point that the author is making here. Rand Paul has no chance of becoming President, but he does have an opportunity to steer the debate about the proper role of government. Yet he is squandering this opportunity by taking inconsistent positions on a variety of topics, all to ingratiate himself with various factions within the Republican party. While all of us, Republican and Democrat alike, have strong opinions about what the government should not be doing with public funds, we also seem to believe that the government has a limitless capacity to fund the programs with which we agree. If we could all just recognize and acknowledge that taxpayers have a limited capacity to fund government programs, perhaps we could reach some reasonable compromises about how to best allocate public funds for the common good.
17
Er, the deficit has been going down steadily and is at what economits consider manageable levels. Our tax rate is far lower than that in other first-world industrialized countries. In what sense are we unable to finance the programs that we have?
8
Just listen to Fox News or AM radio for a hour and you will think we are the most overtaxed country on earth. That's where 90% of Obama-haters (for that is what unites them more than any other common belief) get their "facts."
9
Are Libertarians interested in a civil discussion of the proper role of government and compromises involving allocation of public funds for the common good?
The author of the opinion piece seems to have already made his mind up on both counts.
The author of the opinion piece seems to have already made his mind up on both counts.
7
Rand Paul needs to better utilize his skills as the optician he once was....as he needs to open his eyes.
4
Ii have yet to determine if the Libertarian Party is an official party in Kentucky. Can anyone help me out with this one? If Rand Paul is such a great libertarian, why did he not run for US Senator as that party's candidate? (Well, that's rather a rhetorical question.)
I've always held that Libertarians are like the shunned boy on the basketball court that didn't get his way, so he took his ball and went home, leaving the other players in the lurch. They are a different bent of Republicans.
I've always held that Libertarians are like the shunned boy on the basketball court that didn't get his way, so he took his ball and went home, leaving the other players in the lurch. They are a different bent of Republicans.
3
Why were the boys on the basketball court shunning the kid who brought the ball, and why were they surprised when he took his ball with him when he left?
The unavoidable problem with trying to estimate support for Rand Paul is that once past college age, the great majority of people who claim to be Libertarian are really just Republicans who are (quite understandably) too embarrassed to admit it.
10
...Unless your name is Bill Maher.
Libertarianism is an excellent philosophy for speech-making and exciting college audiences looking for a political identity. (It's light on rule-making, and college kids are the right age for that.) One thing Libertarianism is not good for, however, is governing. It subjugates all decisions to its purity, not fix problems. And that's the problem. Libertarianism is not about fixing problems. In fact, it' the opposite. Just look at Rand's views of the Civil Rights Act.
64
Libertarianism is great until the schools close, the roads fall apart, your prescription medication poisons you, and your Social Security check doesn't come. As Ayn Rand, who applied secretly for Social Security in the name of a friend, came to know, but wasn't willing to admit.
14
Libertarianism can be seen as heuristic to divide problems into two groups: those which can be solved by force, and those which can be solved by voluntary exchange. Just because a problem falls into the latter category doesn't mean libertarians do not believe it is worth solving.
1
"Just because a problem falls into the latter category doesn't mean libertarians do not believe it is worth solving."
Well put.
Well put.
"For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property."
Well - no - and only a fool would claim that. I am a libertarian and I absolutely reject your premise.
You might amend your idea to: "For a wacko far-out nutty individual claiming to be a libertarian, the government’s power to tax...."
Re-read your Mill and ignore Mr. Paul's dad as prophet.
Well - no - and only a fool would claim that. I am a libertarian and I absolutely reject your premise.
You might amend your idea to: "For a wacko far-out nutty individual claiming to be a libertarian, the government’s power to tax...."
Re-read your Mill and ignore Mr. Paul's dad as prophet.
3
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure." In a nutshell, that's the problem. Libertarianism makes no sense. You can smear all the lipstick in the world on either of the Pauls, and it won't transform a bad idea into a good one. Rand Paul knows that. He also wants desperately to be president, so he's going to betray whichever of Daddy's principles (which used to be his principals, but--hey!--a boy's gotta do what a boy's gotta do) are most likely to stand in his way.
I do appreciate the author's honest statements that a "true" Libertarian only has one interest at heart--his or her own. I propose that these folks should feel to not take advantage of any government service (included inspected foods, health care, doctor's advice, highways, air traffic control, etc., etc.) and let the rest of society enjoy the benefits of national effort.
I do appreciate the author's honest statements that a "true" Libertarian only has one interest at heart--his or her own. I propose that these folks should feel to not take advantage of any government service (included inspected foods, health care, doctor's advice, highways, air traffic control, etc., etc.) and let the rest of society enjoy the benefits of national effort.
9
" Invoking Barry M. Goldwater is hazardous for a Republican these days".
Exactly ! If one wants to get anywhere near a position to make a difference
in today's political landscape, you have to play it smart. Rand Paul IS the smartest guy in the room. He is running as a Republican just as his father, knowing that that's the only ticket to get to a position where a difference can and hopefully will be made. I would not want to label Rand Paul a libertarian.
It is indeed hazardous and is already used by the MSM to try to disqualify him as a viable candidate.
He is my/our Trojan Horse of Liberty.
No one but Rand Paul 2016
Exactly ! If one wants to get anywhere near a position to make a difference
in today's political landscape, you have to play it smart. Rand Paul IS the smartest guy in the room. He is running as a Republican just as his father, knowing that that's the only ticket to get to a position where a difference can and hopefully will be made. I would not want to label Rand Paul a libertarian.
It is indeed hazardous and is already used by the MSM to try to disqualify him as a viable candidate.
He is my/our Trojan Horse of Liberty.
No one but Rand Paul 2016
3
Only in America. Libertarianism is a sponsored form of mental illness. We are social animals and our lives are deeply collective. But, even in sheer terms of power analysis, corporate capitalism, which is itself the logical result of small-scale capitalism, requires a big government to stay out of permanent depression. That's just Reality 101.
11
Libertarianism is about freedom. The freedom to polute the air and water for profit. The freedom to sell unsafe food and unsafe and/or ineffective drugs for profit. The freedom to destroy the economy for profit. The freedom of the rich and powerful to profit from any unscrupulous scheme they can dream up at the expense of everyone else.
26
No. Libertarianism is about the freedom to do anything that doesn't harm someone else. No libertarian argues that anyone should be free to harm others, even for profit.
6
Libertarianism is opposed to most things you just mentioned on principle.
Pollution: A violation of property rights and/or harm to one's person. Libertarianism states that polluters should pay for the damage they cause.
Selling unsafe or ineffective products: Assuming the products were marketed as being safe and effective, this is fraud at the very least. Fraudsters should pay for the damage they cause.
The freedom to destroy the economy for a profit: Libertarianism is expressly opposed to the most common and clear ways economies are destroyed for a profit, which are inflation to pay off government debts ("printing money") and offensive warfare (from which some politicians will profit). Are there other ways to destroy the economy which don't involve force or fraud? Probably, but no one really knows. Maybe in 50 years we'll understand the Great Recession as well as we understand the Great Depression now.
The freedom of the rich to profit from unscrupulous schemes: This is too vague to answer. A libertarian society would certainly have unscrupulous ways for people to profit at the expense of everyone else, just as our society has now. Would it be easier or harder for this to be done in a society where no one saw the use of violence and fraud as legitimate?
Pollution: A violation of property rights and/or harm to one's person. Libertarianism states that polluters should pay for the damage they cause.
Selling unsafe or ineffective products: Assuming the products were marketed as being safe and effective, this is fraud at the very least. Fraudsters should pay for the damage they cause.
The freedom to destroy the economy for a profit: Libertarianism is expressly opposed to the most common and clear ways economies are destroyed for a profit, which are inflation to pay off government debts ("printing money") and offensive warfare (from which some politicians will profit). Are there other ways to destroy the economy which don't involve force or fraud? Probably, but no one really knows. Maybe in 50 years we'll understand the Great Recession as well as we understand the Great Depression now.
The freedom of the rich to profit from unscrupulous schemes: This is too vague to answer. A libertarian society would certainly have unscrupulous ways for people to profit at the expense of everyone else, just as our society has now. Would it be easier or harder for this to be done in a society where no one saw the use of violence and fraud as legitimate?
2
Oh, and if you ARE harming someone else, say by polluting and destroying our common environment, then just who is it that the Libertarian believes should take that freedom away from you?
1
So basically Rand Paul was a Libertarian until he got into office and was forced to confront reality, and then changed his mind to consider libertarianism an 'albatross'? How much better our country would be if all libertarians & Ayn Rand disciples could face reality in a similar fashion!
14
So the author asks "Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans?" Well, if cutting the National Science Foundation's budget by 62% is representative of one of these ideas, I can certainly see why people would think this. As immense problems loom for our near term future, eliminating the research that might help us to understand our options certainly seems like a sound idea, right? Ignoring problems is a solid "conservative " position, exemplified by St. Ronald Reagan's statement that the government should not subsidize intellectual curiosity (read: science). Whatever benefits that a Libertarian perspective may bring, the solutions offered often seem poorly reasoned and destined to make things immensely worse for all of us, except possibly for those who exploit others and the environment for their profits and would rather not have any constraints imposed by any government.
42
This is a subset of the "libertarians don't want government to fund X, so therefore they don't want X to be funded" argument. Its often incorrect (though not always - I very much want to defund offensive wars, along with many frivolous NSF grants).
There are many ways to fund science beyond government subsidies. Most people aren't familiar with them, as they require specialized knowledge of economics or certain industries.
e.g., the science which has most transformed our world in the past 50 years: computer science. It is almost entirely created by voluntary means, and much of it is freely available for any computer scientist or engineer to use whenever they wish. Contrast this with the gated journals and unpublished data of mainstream science, as well as the returns we've seen from this investment.
There are many ways to fund science beyond government subsidies. Most people aren't familiar with them, as they require specialized knowledge of economics or certain industries.
e.g., the science which has most transformed our world in the past 50 years: computer science. It is almost entirely created by voluntary means, and much of it is freely available for any computer scientist or engineer to use whenever they wish. Contrast this with the gated journals and unpublished data of mainstream science, as well as the returns we've seen from this investment.
1
The Internet, for example, was initially developed with government funding through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), initially established as ARPA by President Eisenhower in 1958, in response to the surprise launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union.
Going back further, the Manhattan Project was a government-supported program which led to the development of the Atom Bomb.
A significant portion of medical research is supported by the National Institute of Health.
There are many things which are valuable to the community, but are more difficult to convert into profit making ventures or that we decide we would rather not do so, like National Parks.
Now, who has the incentive or the resources to address our current challenge of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and subsequent effects on climate?
Going back further, the Manhattan Project was a government-supported program which led to the development of the Atom Bomb.
A significant portion of medical research is supported by the National Institute of Health.
There are many things which are valuable to the community, but are more difficult to convert into profit making ventures or that we decide we would rather not do so, like National Parks.
Now, who has the incentive or the resources to address our current challenge of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and subsequent effects on climate?
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure. That’s precisely why we need a candidate who will articulate them."
I would argue you need not only a candidate, but also a Party which articulates your Libertarian values. And that is the Libertarian Party. The forced wedding between Libertarians and Republicans has been awkward from day one because at the very roots they are at odds. Traditional Reagan conservatives reject much of Libertarian philosophy on everything from foreign affairs and defense, to legalization of drugs, to a range of social issues. We agree on small government, but not much else. That's why Rand seems so uncomfortably contorted in his run for the White House. He's really trying to sound like a traditional Republican, when at heart his home is in the Libertarian Party. Ultimately that cognitive dissonance will be his undoing as a candidate, and hopefully will begin the end of the odd Libertarian-Republican marriage experiment.
I would argue you need not only a candidate, but also a Party which articulates your Libertarian values. And that is the Libertarian Party. The forced wedding between Libertarians and Republicans has been awkward from day one because at the very roots they are at odds. Traditional Reagan conservatives reject much of Libertarian philosophy on everything from foreign affairs and defense, to legalization of drugs, to a range of social issues. We agree on small government, but not much else. That's why Rand seems so uncomfortably contorted in his run for the White House. He's really trying to sound like a traditional Republican, when at heart his home is in the Libertarian Party. Ultimately that cognitive dissonance will be his undoing as a candidate, and hopefully will begin the end of the odd Libertarian-Republican marriage experiment.
6
"The forced wedding between Libertarians and Republicans has been awkward from day one because at the very roots they are at odds."
This is very true. I don't understand why libertarians still feel a need to tie themselves to the Republican Party. If the Democratic Party could just get over their fear of free markets, they would essentially be libertarians. The Republicans have much farther to go, actually, and have only ever paid lip service to free markets while handing money to their cronies.
This is very true. I don't understand why libertarians still feel a need to tie themselves to the Republican Party. If the Democratic Party could just get over their fear of free markets, they would essentially be libertarians. The Republicans have much farther to go, actually, and have only ever paid lip service to free markets while handing money to their cronies.
Sorry, I think he's really a Republican trying to attract attention by claiming to be a Libertarian.
4
Rand Paul will never be a true libertarian unless he rejects is anti-choice stance regarding abortion. True libertarians believe strongly that the government should not be involved with our personal health care decisions. That includes government restrictions on abortion as well as government intrusion into women's health care choices. For women, the right to decide whether and when to have children is a deeply personal choice. Government should not be involved, period.
57
Libertarianism = the freedom of rich Republicans to do anything they want.
5
Agree with you on choice, Anne, but thank goodness no pol can do anything about a woman's right to choose. Love the Constitution. Love Harry Blackmun.
"Big government" isn't the problem, nor were deficits/debt the immediate problem over the last several years - the problems are state capture, money in politics and beholden lawmakers, all of which involve the private sector in a major way; allowing this to happen are those who focus on things that are not the problems.
6
As I read this the conclusion I draw is that Mr. Doherty does not recognize that liberty has a cost, he views it as a free for all without repercussions with only limited intrusion by government and thus the rule of law. A country of over 300 million poeople requires a degree of order.
Mr. Doherty states: "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts.' I'm sorry Mr. Doherty but I want the CDC and if anything their budget needs to be expanded in our world at risk from disease as a result of increased mobility. Shrink the National Science Foundation by 62%, this from a Rand Paul a physician? Just who do you expect to conduct scientific research and expand knowledge, journalists such as yourself.
Your utopian view of a libertarian paradise of "freedom and liberty" is perverse at best. Libertarian purity may have a cult following but it will never be mainstream, I'll give Paul enough credit to recognize that.
Mr. Doherty states: "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts.' I'm sorry Mr. Doherty but I want the CDC and if anything their budget needs to be expanded in our world at risk from disease as a result of increased mobility. Shrink the National Science Foundation by 62%, this from a Rand Paul a physician? Just who do you expect to conduct scientific research and expand knowledge, journalists such as yourself.
Your utopian view of a libertarian paradise of "freedom and liberty" is perverse at best. Libertarian purity may have a cult following but it will never be mainstream, I'll give Paul enough credit to recognize that.
6
Liberty has no cost, it is the default state. Liberty exists unless someone takes it away.
I lost my interest in Paul when he dissed vaccinations and invited Al Sharpton to lunch at the senate dining room.
3
I disagree with many, but not all, Libertarian ideas about the proper role of government. I do think that they deserve a much more prominent place in the public debate than they receive. I deplore the trend to campaign on the basis of polls that tell us nothing but what uninformed people believe.
5
Debating whether government or the private sector, profit and non-profit alike, can best meet the Common needs and welfare of those who live in this country is a vital debate. So is the debate about the conflict between individual rights and the rights of the citizenry.
Unfortunately, Modern Libertarianism does little more than repeat slogans about personal liberty (for men only) and support those who are anti-science and anti-regulation in order to be able to exploit the powerless.
Actually, my opinion of Sen. Paul is a little higher because he has backed off a littlle in order to become a Republican. But the Republican candidates are all still extremists pandering to the worst impulses rather than appealing to our better angels.
Unfortunately, Modern Libertarianism does little more than repeat slogans about personal liberty (for men only) and support those who are anti-science and anti-regulation in order to be able to exploit the powerless.
Actually, my opinion of Sen. Paul is a little higher because he has backed off a littlle in order to become a Republican. But the Republican candidates are all still extremists pandering to the worst impulses rather than appealing to our better angels.
7
I waited in vain for Mr. Doherty to address the most obvious black mark on Mr. Paul's record as a "libertarian"- namely his opposition to women's reproductive rights. Perhaps the author shares Mr. Paul's belief that women should, with few exceptions, be compelled to bring all pregnancies to parturition. If such is the case, then he, too, is allowing his personal religious convictions to override his credibility as a libertarian. You can't have it both ways.
15
As far as I know, Doherty does not share this view with Rand. There are many points on which libertarians feel betrayed by Rand, and that's one of them.
2
bravo !... you saved me expressing precisely the same thought...although I would love to vote for a true libertarian (and imagine there are many other disgruntled Republicans and Democrats who are also looking elsewhere for the social liberalism plus economic conservatism that equals libertarianism), there's no way i'd support a pseudo-libertarianism that's twisted around a core of backward-looking social "philosophies"... this blind spot eliminates the otherwise-promising rand (and before him, ron) paul candidacy from my voting booth
The anti-abortion argument some libertarians make - is that the rights of the unborn child should be protected - not that women should have no reproductive rights at all. Rand Paul Paul does not call himself a libertarian.
While Paul is personally against abortion, he has supported legislation both with and without exceptions. Ultimately however, he believes each state should be permitted to determine whether or not abortion will be legal.
While Paul is personally against abortion, he has supported legislation both with and without exceptions. Ultimately however, he believes each state should be permitted to determine whether or not abortion will be legal.
Barry Goldwater was famously Pro-Choice because to be otherwise was to limit a woman's civil liberties in a most profound, personal way. Both Pauls are proponents of governmental intervention to deny women control of their bodies. They purloined the term Libertarian to pander to one electorate group and are social authoritarians to pander to another. Thus the biggest albatross borne by Rand Paul is not his (false) libertarianism, but his duplicity.
17
This is absurd. So we shouldn't have highways or trains or an FAA. Now, we shouldn't have the CDC or FDA. No plumbing too? No scientific research either. It's funny how these things only apply to Libertarians until they need to step on a plane or need an ambulance to get down a road or a fir department who has resources to save your home. And God forbid your husband, wife or child becomes ill and needs medical care that could save their life but the big bad government wad the one who financed the research for the treatment. I'm sure that all you self sufficient Libertarians will stick with you convictions and walk to the ambulance, roast marshmallows while your house burns down, and of course ignore a cure for your loved one because it was based on government finances. Not to mention the floods, hurricanes, tornadoes that rip through our country.
The only thing that was complete horse manure was the draconian prison sentences for drugs. Non violent offenders should not be kept in jail longer than sexual predators. It's sick that a child molester serves a few years and a kid dealing drugs gets 20. With a little training and help, the drug dealer could be rehabilitated. The only change in a pedophile is they kill the next kid they attack. Ever look at the criminal records of some of these animals who rape and kill. It's very rarely a first time. Keep them locked away.
The only thing that was complete horse manure was the draconian prison sentences for drugs. Non violent offenders should not be kept in jail longer than sexual predators. It's sick that a child molester serves a few years and a kid dealing drugs gets 20. With a little training and help, the drug dealer could be rehabilitated. The only change in a pedophile is they kill the next kid they attack. Ever look at the criminal records of some of these animals who rape and kill. It's very rarely a first time. Keep them locked away.
13
Why do you assume that because someone doesn't want the *government* to supply science that therefore the person doesn't think there should be any such thing as science? Or anything else for that matter?
2
perhaps because the other option is for business to pay for it.
While this is an obvious option and is often how things are done, it isn't the only other option. There are other ways to fund science, or public goods in general, which might be considerably more efficient than how government does it.
e.g.: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/1024/X-Prize-Foundation-will-crowd...
e.g.: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/1024/X-Prize-Foundation-will-crowd...
The comments being so overwhelmingly pro Rand Paul ( I am joking), I would offer a minority view. As Mr. Doherty says, we should consider the question of "what is the proper function of government, or, at what level of government should a law or regulation be imposed?" when considering policy.
After the New Deal and the expansion of the commerce clause (interpretation of) society has come to the point where approval or disapproval of any government action is decided by almost all individuals solely on the basis of whether the proposed action is thought to be in the individual's self-interest, rather than whether government should be involved.
I hold views which Mr. Doherty would approve and others with which he would disagree. It is immoral for government (us) to incarcerate people for using , possessing, or selling (to competent adults) drugs. In other words, if one is not harming others, individuals should be free to decide the life-style risks they wish to assume. I also, however, favor a military draft, done as equitably as possible, and with exclusions only for those with physical or mental disabilities. The risk of defending our country should be born equally by every adult.
As a quasi-libertarian, I am a passionate environmentalist. Our world is a "commons" , and our government should protect it. We should greatly reduce immigration as that is the great driver of population growth, which is the greatest environmental threat.
After the New Deal and the expansion of the commerce clause (interpretation of) society has come to the point where approval or disapproval of any government action is decided by almost all individuals solely on the basis of whether the proposed action is thought to be in the individual's self-interest, rather than whether government should be involved.
I hold views which Mr. Doherty would approve and others with which he would disagree. It is immoral for government (us) to incarcerate people for using , possessing, or selling (to competent adults) drugs. In other words, if one is not harming others, individuals should be free to decide the life-style risks they wish to assume. I also, however, favor a military draft, done as equitably as possible, and with exclusions only for those with physical or mental disabilities. The risk of defending our country should be born equally by every adult.
As a quasi-libertarian, I am a passionate environmentalist. Our world is a "commons" , and our government should protect it. We should greatly reduce immigration as that is the great driver of population growth, which is the greatest environmental threat.
4
But what if one's drug use has the unintended consequence of contributing to rising medical care/health insurance costs for others, perhaps all? Shouldn't that factor into the equation also?
In addition, immigration is also a primary driver of economic growth, not altogether a bad thing.
It seems there are two edges (at least) to the "swords" you are using as arguments.
In addition, immigration is also a primary driver of economic growth, not altogether a bad thing.
It seems there are two edges (at least) to the "swords" you are using as arguments.
Libertarianism itself is rife with contradictions if one is to take at face value any of its proponents. This column cites Ronald Reagan as a benchmark, defining what government is for. If government is for senseless military spending and taxation of those least able to afford it, Reagan is a great example. So the rest of us are left scratching our heads wondering if Libertarians are just another group wanting the government to focus, and spend our resources, on their needs instead of programs that might actually benefit the nation as a whole. Rand Paul's dictatorial approach to the Senate just confirms what we all fear from Libertarians - "Don't Tread on Me" as it might interfere with me treading on you.
7
Republican Taxation vs. Libertarian Taxation
"For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property." State and local governments protect our lives and personal property as best they can. The federal government protects the important property that is essential to interstate and global commerce. This includes not just infrastructure, but also the more important intellectual property rights of global U.S. businesses which justify the defense budget. In just the last five years family wealth has increased from $56 trillion to $83 trillion. Most of this increase has been tax free gains in the value of stocks and other assets.
This week the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to eliminate Estate and Gift Taxes (including gifts to political organizations). Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation promote tax reform that, not only lowers, but actually eliminates tax on financial income from dividends, interest or capital gains. See http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/a-tax-reform-primer-for...
Fairness of purpose suggests that federal taxes should be based on wealth rather than generated from workers. This libertarian approach is countered by the Republican "don't tax the wealthy" philosophy. Democrats see over taxing workers as less of a problem than the planned elimination of taxes on the wealthy.
"For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property." State and local governments protect our lives and personal property as best they can. The federal government protects the important property that is essential to interstate and global commerce. This includes not just infrastructure, but also the more important intellectual property rights of global U.S. businesses which justify the defense budget. In just the last five years family wealth has increased from $56 trillion to $83 trillion. Most of this increase has been tax free gains in the value of stocks and other assets.
This week the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to eliminate Estate and Gift Taxes (including gifts to political organizations). Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation promote tax reform that, not only lowers, but actually eliminates tax on financial income from dividends, interest or capital gains. See http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/a-tax-reform-primer-for...
Fairness of purpose suggests that federal taxes should be based on wealth rather than generated from workers. This libertarian approach is countered by the Republican "don't tax the wealthy" philosophy. Democrats see over taxing workers as less of a problem than the planned elimination of taxes on the wealthy.
The main problem with libertarianism is that it assumes people are rational actors, and that an unregulated system somehow, as if by magic, produces good (even ideal) outcomes.
They are not, and it cannot.
They are not, and it cannot.
29
And what about the unelected officials writing your regulations?
Are you not assuming that they too, “are rational actors” - with no self-interests, or corporate cronies to whom they will be providing favors?
Libertarianism removes the control of these fallible humans from the equation - cutting off their ability to give unfair advantages to friends while discriminating against the less politically connected.
Regulators are selfish and corrupt people, too.
Are you not assuming that they too, “are rational actors” - with no self-interests, or corporate cronies to whom they will be providing favors?
Libertarianism removes the control of these fallible humans from the equation - cutting off their ability to give unfair advantages to friends while discriminating against the less politically connected.
Regulators are selfish and corrupt people, too.
Rationality isn't fixed. People become more rational when being so benefits them, and less rational when the cost of being so is low. Politics is actually a prime example, as voters have little reason to be rational. As a result they will take strong stances on complex issues they know little of.
Sociologists used to hope this irrational "noise" would be randomly distributed and thus not pull policy in any particular direction, but unfortunately more recent research has shown this to be incorrect.
Politics tends to be less rational than civil society for these reasons.
Sociologists used to hope this irrational "noise" would be randomly distributed and thus not pull policy in any particular direction, but unfortunately more recent research has shown this to be incorrect.
Politics tends to be less rational than civil society for these reasons.
No, libertarianism doesn't assume that. It just doesn't assume that allowing OTHER non-rational actors to impose their will, violently if necessary, will improve things.
2
Whatever the virtue of opposing mindless governmental overreach and its many costs, what is virtuous in libertarian strategies not dictated by two simple principles, choose what is of greatest importance for a nation and spend as little as possible to accomplish it.
Missing in the responsible right is the virtue of community and thoughtful appraisal about how to facilitate its best functioning.
There is no question that central to all governance is the value of respect for the individual but where is there an appreciation of the value of collaborative engagement around common goals? Do we wish that all our children be equipped as best we can do it with knowledge and virtue so that they can function as responsible and contributing citizens?
The focus of most candidates is the implication that there is special advantage to be gained for a subgroup and not our Nation as a whole.
Who are we? Well, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do state basic values that are implemented in governmental structures and functions. Equality is at the center of those foundational documents. Who has the competence to pursue their implementation?
Today we have many pretenders but do we have a shrewd appraisal of who might best achieve that goal? "Ideology" and its trumpeting is most often substituted for a shrewd appraisal of the necessary virtues of effective and competent leadership. Does Rand Paul have those qualifications? Rhetoric is not enough.
Missing in the responsible right is the virtue of community and thoughtful appraisal about how to facilitate its best functioning.
There is no question that central to all governance is the value of respect for the individual but where is there an appreciation of the value of collaborative engagement around common goals? Do we wish that all our children be equipped as best we can do it with knowledge and virtue so that they can function as responsible and contributing citizens?
The focus of most candidates is the implication that there is special advantage to be gained for a subgroup and not our Nation as a whole.
Who are we? Well, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution do state basic values that are implemented in governmental structures and functions. Equality is at the center of those foundational documents. Who has the competence to pursue their implementation?
Today we have many pretenders but do we have a shrewd appraisal of who might best achieve that goal? "Ideology" and its trumpeting is most often substituted for a shrewd appraisal of the necessary virtues of effective and competent leadership. Does Rand Paul have those qualifications? Rhetoric is not enough.
1
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts."
Huh???
Huh???
15
Yeah, that libertarianism is all about protecting me from the government.
After all, I can trust corporations like drug companies, car companies, and food processors to always have my best interests at heart and always provide me with all the information I need to make an informed choice....
After all, I can trust corporations like drug companies, car companies, and food processors to always have my best interests at heart and always provide me with all the information I need to make an informed choice....
38
You do not understand how the free market will take care of all those things. Just like it stopped toxic dumping into rivers and lakes and air, and ended Jim Crow in the South with no need for governmental action.
1
Republican Hypocrisy: If Clinton wanted a good anti-Republican highlight she could point out that you cannot trust those guys because not only do they stay on the government payroll when they are not doing the jobs for which they were elected (running for another office is not covered under their current "elected and paid for" job) they are all also anti-abortion when not one of them has made a personal commitment to adopt those who are not wanted and that number would skyrocket if those opposed to abortion got elected and could change the law. Now, some of us also do not like the Democrats. Is there even one Ross Perot today who could be convinced to begin to fix this political mess?
4
A libertarian and a politician are in inherent oxymoronic conflict.
Libertarian rule would still have us living in caves with hand painted walls lit by fire wearing animal skins. Libertarian rule would have left us a British colony during an age of revolution. And libertarian rule would have led to a divided nation in lieu of civil war. Americans would have never gone "Over There" in either world war if a libertarian ruled. Jim Crow would reign and rule in America under libertarian rule.
Rand Paul is trying to be a hot aka winning politician. Libertarians need to spout from the lunatic academic political fringe. Who knows we might discern something of value in their ranting. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Libertarian rule would still have us living in caves with hand painted walls lit by fire wearing animal skins. Libertarian rule would have left us a British colony during an age of revolution. And libertarian rule would have led to a divided nation in lieu of civil war. Americans would have never gone "Over There" in either world war if a libertarian ruled. Jim Crow would reign and rule in America under libertarian rule.
Rand Paul is trying to be a hot aka winning politician. Libertarians need to spout from the lunatic academic political fringe. Who knows we might discern something of value in their ranting. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
8
How is Libertarianism more than just a licence to bully? If the role of government is to "protect our natural rights to our lives and property," what if you don't have any property?
11
Actually, very few people, if any, have "no property". Wealthy people have oodles of property in all forms, real and personal. But even the poorest have some possessions: clothes, books etc. I live in a city and see homeless people every day. I am not trying to minimize their plight, but even these homeless people have clothes and some personal possessions. The poor have as much interst in protecting what they own as do the rich. So a government that perceives its role as protecting "our natural rights to our lives and property" will be of equal or actually more use to a poor person than a rich one. Consider,, who needs protection from whom. Contrary to what you suggest, such a governmnet would be a bulwark against bullying by the rich and rescourceful of the poor and disenfranchised.
In case you have not noticed, this is not our current system.
In case you have not noticed, this is not our current system.
Mr. Paul, like most Libertarians, is for protecting his freedoms often and paying lip service to the freedoms of others or even abandoning others. His attitude towards women's freedom to control their own bodies leads him to restrict their freedom. His attitude towards free thinking science leads him to cut budgets to silence scientists. His attitude towards other countries leads him to increase the military budget to silence them. He of course has a "reason" for each of these choices, but his willingness to sacrifice others for his own reasons demonstrate the opportunistic approach he and other Libertarians are taking towards freedom.
8
"Rand Paul’s defense of liberty has been lackluster," especially in his opposition to abortion rights and same sex marriage where he turns from libertarian to theocrat.
In a 2013 interview with the National Review he said, "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage." That doesn't like a defense of personal liberty at all to me.
In a 2013 interview with the National Review he said, "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage." That doesn't like a defense of personal liberty at all to me.
7
Libertarianism, like the associated Austrian school of economics, is an ideology without any basis in reality. Its only real purpose is to provide a patina of righteousness for the usurpation of democracy by the rich and powerful.
24
True, it's dangerous to have ideals.
"Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been as bad as Democrats in defining what government is for — what it can and can’t rightly do."
You mean the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'?"
Are you saying that the Republican presidents before Reagan (Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower) were more Libertarian?
Sure the drug war sucks, but the man didn't commit troops abroad, reduced nuclear weapons, enacted some amnesty, reduced taxes dramatically, etc. Most of my fellow libertarians just love to rip the man who swayed more people to the side of limited government than anyone in the history of America.
Say what you like about the results of his presidency, his rhetoric is the most convincing libertarian argument ever to be expressed in this country (or any other for that matter).
You mean the man who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'?"
Are you saying that the Republican presidents before Reagan (Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower) were more Libertarian?
Sure the drug war sucks, but the man didn't commit troops abroad, reduced nuclear weapons, enacted some amnesty, reduced taxes dramatically, etc. Most of my fellow libertarians just love to rip the man who swayed more people to the side of limited government than anyone in the history of America.
Say what you like about the results of his presidency, his rhetoric is the most convincing libertarian argument ever to be expressed in this country (or any other for that matter).
1
So you've researched what everyone in this country or any other country has ever said, regarding libertarianism? Reagan dramatically accelerated spending, deficits, debt accumulation over that of Carter's government (it's there in the BEA numbers, but I doubt that evidence will sway you) and increased the size of government, all while getting people like you who only listen to speeches BELIEVING (religion, you know) that he had shrunk government. His policies also led directly to the savings and loan debacle and '87 market crash, and have contributed to the subsequent boom/bust cycles.
1
So running the country by Libertarian principles gets us results like Reagan's, and that's a reason to vote Libertarian? ("Say what you like about the results of his presidency") Thanks but no thanks.
Doherty's suggestion that slashing funding to NASA, the CDC and NSF is grounded in an ideological worldview that sees "small government" not as a means but an end, based on the assumption that in the absence of funding for such agencies, market forces will swoop in and fill the gap. No more NASA? There's Elon Musk's SpaceX! No more NSF? Private industry will invest in R&D! No more CDC? Let people make their own health choices! The Libertarian Party has also called for abolishing the FDA, a position Doherty alludes to when he talks about the government telling us which foods and drugs we can and can't use.
A thoughtful liberal, moderate or conservative can find ways that the CDC, NSF and NASA can use their funding more efficiently. But to a libertarian, those agencies are wasteful by virtue of their existence and morally wrong because the government shouldn't be involved in such things, well, just because it shouldn't. Of course, I'd love to hear exactly how a libertarian thinks the private sector would do the type of public health monitoring and research the CDC does, or how the private sector would have put a man on the moon, or how the private sector - specifically which companies and under which timelines and with how much funding - would support the types of important but often unprofitable basic research the NSF does, especially when other countries that haven't fallen under the sway of libertarianism will be competing with us.
A thoughtful liberal, moderate or conservative can find ways that the CDC, NSF and NASA can use their funding more efficiently. But to a libertarian, those agencies are wasteful by virtue of their existence and morally wrong because the government shouldn't be involved in such things, well, just because it shouldn't. Of course, I'd love to hear exactly how a libertarian thinks the private sector would do the type of public health monitoring and research the CDC does, or how the private sector would have put a man on the moon, or how the private sector - specifically which companies and under which timelines and with how much funding - would support the types of important but often unprofitable basic research the NSF does, especially when other countries that haven't fallen under the sway of libertarianism will be competing with us.
2
The problem with the libertarian paradigm is "where do you draw the line" between personal freedom and the public good as a whole. They'll never get that one hammered out to any satisfaction for many of their myopic constituents.
6
Ron Paul was preaching. Rand Paul wants to be President. end of story.
4
Libertarians are delusional. Show me one nation that became prosperous--and remains so today--where the only role government plays is protecting the populace from fraud and from aggression. That's the libertarian ideal, isn't it? Well, let's see it. Show me one civilized nation that has modeled its society based on Ayn Rand's hallucinations and then we can look at libertarianism under a different lens than Scientology.
10
"Libertarian" and "society" are mutually exclusive. Look at Somalia: the government is small, nobody pays taxes and everybody can have guns. A libertarian paradise! Anyone want to live there?
15
Sounds a lot like Kansas
1
Shouldn't a true libetarian believe in Gay Rights. I saw an interview with David Koch where even he expressed his support for gay rights
5
This is not about libertarianism it is about democracy. Paul understands what democracy is.
Rule of the common man.
There is a brilliant line from the late George Carlin.
"Imagine a guy with the most average intelligence. Now think, half of the people is stupider then him"
When you imagine this fact you may have glimpse of the horror of democracy. Of course it is not only about intelligence. It is also about the education and motivation also lacking from the common man.
You look at politicians. Their elaborate lies, pandering, promising free stuff, etc. The reason this works is the common man.
Libertarianism is a complex theory. It sounds weird to the common man, because common man lacks the intelligence, the education and time to follow the trail of thought. Libertarianism appeals to to the mind. It doesn't appeal to instincts and emotions like the mainstream left or the right. That is why it has no chance in a democracy.
You can be pure like Ron Paul and you will be dismissed. You can be like Rand Paul and you will derided because you are not pure.
Rand Paul understand that libertarianism will never have an appeal to the common man. So he doesn't deal with the complex ideology as a whole, only issues. He is trying to move the issues a bit to the right direction. He will still fail of course because it all comes down to the question "who will better manipulate the common man". And there are pros on either side.
Rule of the common man.
There is a brilliant line from the late George Carlin.
"Imagine a guy with the most average intelligence. Now think, half of the people is stupider then him"
When you imagine this fact you may have glimpse of the horror of democracy. Of course it is not only about intelligence. It is also about the education and motivation also lacking from the common man.
You look at politicians. Their elaborate lies, pandering, promising free stuff, etc. The reason this works is the common man.
Libertarianism is a complex theory. It sounds weird to the common man, because common man lacks the intelligence, the education and time to follow the trail of thought. Libertarianism appeals to to the mind. It doesn't appeal to instincts and emotions like the mainstream left or the right. That is why it has no chance in a democracy.
You can be pure like Ron Paul and you will be dismissed. You can be like Rand Paul and you will derided because you are not pure.
Rand Paul understand that libertarianism will never have an appeal to the common man. So he doesn't deal with the complex ideology as a whole, only issues. He is trying to move the issues a bit to the right direction. He will still fail of course because it all comes down to the question "who will better manipulate the common man". And there are pros on either side.
"Constitutional Conservative" is what both Rand Paul and his father Ron are.
Mr. Doherty confuses libertarianism with anarchy. They are very different.
Jefferson was a different person than Bakunin. The Pauls support the latter.
Consequently, both Rand and Ron are opposed to abortion. They believe
in the rule of law and particularly favor the neglected common law, which
has been a hallmark of America. Rand Paul will let Mr. Doherty have
his marijuana but will not give him the right to kill unborn children or
grandmothers. Both Pauls stand by the Hypocratic oath and place
strong emphasis on "First, do no harm." They are opposed to America's
becoming the servants of Israeli policy. They believe in charitable treatment
of the sick and unfortunate. It is simply they would like as much of this charitable treatment to default to private charities. Ron Raul is not a
disciple of Ayn Rand. No decent Christian could be. Rand Paul stands for
the traditional roots of Western Christian Civilization. If Paul would be elected, Americans would be more secure in their safety and property. Fighting wars for Israel (a non ally of America) would cease. He would remove
some of the hatred that the Bushes have achieved by their needless and
brutal interventions in the Middle East. Taxes would go down. National Security would increase. Our armed forces would be to protect us. We would honor our treaties of alliance but would be skepticala about maintaining our
1,000 bases worldwide.
Mr. Doherty confuses libertarianism with anarchy. They are very different.
Jefferson was a different person than Bakunin. The Pauls support the latter.
Consequently, both Rand and Ron are opposed to abortion. They believe
in the rule of law and particularly favor the neglected common law, which
has been a hallmark of America. Rand Paul will let Mr. Doherty have
his marijuana but will not give him the right to kill unborn children or
grandmothers. Both Pauls stand by the Hypocratic oath and place
strong emphasis on "First, do no harm." They are opposed to America's
becoming the servants of Israeli policy. They believe in charitable treatment
of the sick and unfortunate. It is simply they would like as much of this charitable treatment to default to private charities. Ron Raul is not a
disciple of Ayn Rand. No decent Christian could be. Rand Paul stands for
the traditional roots of Western Christian Civilization. If Paul would be elected, Americans would be more secure in their safety and property. Fighting wars for Israel (a non ally of America) would cease. He would remove
some of the hatred that the Bushes have achieved by their needless and
brutal interventions in the Middle East. Taxes would go down. National Security would increase. Our armed forces would be to protect us. We would honor our treaties of alliance but would be skepticala about maintaining our
1,000 bases worldwide.
The Pauls support Bakunin, the anarchist?
Common law is not neglected or ignored. In civil law matters it is there in the absence of statute orcregulation.
Common law is not neglected or ignored. In civil law matters it is there in the absence of statute orcregulation.
Ini it's extreme personal liberty results in anarchy. We must understand that government has roles that are important and need to be protected. One such role is to assure that capitalism respects rational limits. Roles for the federal government are both domestic and foreign.
2
How freshing to hear from Brian Doherty, who evidently views the late 19th century Gilded Age oligarchy as the pinnacle of democratic government.
"America’s government was conceived as a small island of limited powers in a sea of unenumerated rights."
A small island that includes the sweeping Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commence Clause. A sea of unenumerated rights that everyone promptly ignored, forcing their enumeration in the Bill of Rights. It's always interesting to watch libertarians try to bend history to their purpose when it rebukes them at every step. They sound ridiculous to almost every American because they are ridiculous, and because their ideas have never been deployed successfully in any nation-state even once. If not for deep-pocketed supporters like Peter Thiel the Libertarian Party would scarcely outnumber the American Communist Party.
"America’s government was conceived as a small island of limited powers in a sea of unenumerated rights."
A small island that includes the sweeping Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commence Clause. A sea of unenumerated rights that everyone promptly ignored, forcing their enumeration in the Bill of Rights. It's always interesting to watch libertarians try to bend history to their purpose when it rebukes them at every step. They sound ridiculous to almost every American because they are ridiculous, and because their ideas have never been deployed successfully in any nation-state even once. If not for deep-pocketed supporters like Peter Thiel the Libertarian Party would scarcely outnumber the American Communist Party.
5
"For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property." There's a social Darwinism at work in that statement, as I understand it, that is anathema to me as a Christian!
5
As I understand it, Rand Paul opposes same sex marriage and supports greater restrictions on reproductive choice, neither of which are mentioned here. Those two positions seem fundamentally and wildly inconsistent with the notion of "maximum freedom" supposedly articulated by this writer. Or maybe the Republican definition of "maximum freedom" still allows the right wing regligiosi to impose their view of morality on everyone else.
12
Unfortunate that the title of the article - "Rand Paul, Lukewarm Libertarian" - attempted to conceal this.
Its interesting that this criticism itself stays away from many of the core Libertarian positions. No mention of repealing all Civil Rights laws that bar private discrimination, no call for the elimination of the EPA, no statement regarding aid to Israel or what foreign policy of the US should be doing. Most notably, no demand for the elimination of not only the Affordable Care Act but Medicaid and Medicare along with all other public support required for the poor to merely survive. The editor of Reason Magazine must censor himself because Libertarianism is an ideology that sounds wonderful until you think about it and then it amounts to the elevation of callous selfishness to an ultimate ideal.
7
The problem with Libertarianism is that it does not serve to solve any problems, it pretends problems go away when you ignore them. It's political voodoo, but you swing a copy of the Constitution around your head rather than a chicken.
A nation of 325,000,000 people highly integrated with the world, with the most money and most potent military force in world history, and problems of commensurate size, cannot be run as though a couple million people just inherited the most valuable and sparsely populated land mass on Earth, as was the case in 1776. Legal heroin zero financial regulation are not routes to liberty for a vast Middle Class locked into whatever job they have for 50 hours (with commute) a week.
Unless a candidate takes a leadership role and articulates a connection, the popularity of ideals is disconnected from solutions. And so is described here a man who claims to own ideas while he has no solutions. In that sense Paul is as libertarian as is practically possible. The forward of my college US government text said, "The problem with anarchy is that it always degenerates into government." In like fashion the problem with a libertarian is that they need be degenerate into a person with actual proposals for solutions. It's one or the other, but never both.
A nation of 325,000,000 people highly integrated with the world, with the most money and most potent military force in world history, and problems of commensurate size, cannot be run as though a couple million people just inherited the most valuable and sparsely populated land mass on Earth, as was the case in 1776. Legal heroin zero financial regulation are not routes to liberty for a vast Middle Class locked into whatever job they have for 50 hours (with commute) a week.
Unless a candidate takes a leadership role and articulates a connection, the popularity of ideals is disconnected from solutions. And so is described here a man who claims to own ideas while he has no solutions. In that sense Paul is as libertarian as is practically possible. The forward of my college US government text said, "The problem with anarchy is that it always degenerates into government." In like fashion the problem with a libertarian is that they need be degenerate into a person with actual proposals for solutions. It's one or the other, but never both.
8
Mr. Doherty state, "For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property."
But like other libertarians, he has forgotten that our Constitution created our government for six purposes, as follows: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Establishing justice, providing defense, and promoting the general welfare go far beyond the libertarian purposes Mr. Doherty espouses, and require far more in taxation.
But like other libertarians, he has forgotten that our Constitution created our government for six purposes, as follows: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Establishing justice, providing defense, and promoting the general welfare go far beyond the libertarian purposes Mr. Doherty espouses, and require far more in taxation.
13
The problem with libertarianism is like the economists who believe economic forces are rational and operate perfectly, it assumes a perfect world with rational players. Cutting the CDC in an age of global pandemics shows just how ill informed Libertarians are, so are they saying that if a pandemic hits, let millions die and that is the way it is supposed to be? Or do they assume that the private sector has the desire or ability to handle a pandemic? Cutting NASA I am sure appeals to the idiot set, but it leaves out something most libertarians can't understand, that the internet that many of them champion as a basis for freedom and the technology that underlied it didn't come about by the private sector, nor did the carbon fiber and titanium in their bikes, the technology in their phones and so forth. Pure libertarianism is often espoused by the very young, who both are chafing coming out of the restrictions their parents put on them, and also that they lead lives at that age with very little consequences, most are single, have only themselves to answer for, and feel like they are young and strong and will live forever, and never have to worry.
It doesn't mean libertarians don't have ideas, they do, but it need to be tempered with ideas of the real world. Rand Paul is a pretend libertarian, there is no doubt about that, his idea that religious moral law is the basis for society, or that Jim Crow should still be legal, are not libertarian.
It doesn't mean libertarians don't have ideas, they do, but it need to be tempered with ideas of the real world. Rand Paul is a pretend libertarian, there is no doubt about that, his idea that religious moral law is the basis for society, or that Jim Crow should still be legal, are not libertarian.
11
"Libertarians are like house cats: Completely dependent on others but fully convinced of their own independence."
67
He wants to get government out of our business, but into our bedrooms. Next candidate..
16
Ironically, the same Doherty is the greatest promoter and alibier for both Paul's within the libertarian community -- which rejects the Pauls as among the most extreme social conservatives, promoting a perverse version of states rights (NOT federalism) practiced by Orval Faubus, George Wallace and other southern racists.
When Faubus used his state's national guard to block black kids from Little Rock's Central High School -- and Eisenhower sent troops to use force, if needed, to defend the rights of only 9 kids -- Faubus defended his defiance as defending his state from an intrusive federal government.
When the Supreme Court struck down the federal restrictions in DOMA, Ron Paul began growling about "rogue judges," after trying to ban any challenges to DOMA. Rand has the same objection, if more softly stated, to deny us any federal protection from abusive state legislatures, "constitutional conservatives" denying the 9th Amendment, a "liberty" movement that believes states have powers which have never been delegated,
Doherty's Reason magazine is now an outlier, defying the 50-year definition of libertarians as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" to promote a "libertarian moment" as a fundraising gimmick, when Americans both left and right are open to restoring or rediscovering the true essence of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights But power indeed corrupts. Americans are still the most tolerant people on earth -- lacking the leaders we deserve.
When Faubus used his state's national guard to block black kids from Little Rock's Central High School -- and Eisenhower sent troops to use force, if needed, to defend the rights of only 9 kids -- Faubus defended his defiance as defending his state from an intrusive federal government.
When the Supreme Court struck down the federal restrictions in DOMA, Ron Paul began growling about "rogue judges," after trying to ban any challenges to DOMA. Rand has the same objection, if more softly stated, to deny us any federal protection from abusive state legislatures, "constitutional conservatives" denying the 9th Amendment, a "liberty" movement that believes states have powers which have never been delegated,
Doherty's Reason magazine is now an outlier, defying the 50-year definition of libertarians as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" to promote a "libertarian moment" as a fundraising gimmick, when Americans both left and right are open to restoring or rediscovering the true essence of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights But power indeed corrupts. Americans are still the most tolerant people on earth -- lacking the leaders we deserve.
2
The most mindless proposal (among many other inanities) from Rand Paul is shrinking the NSF budget by 62%. Nothing shows more the escape from reality by libertarians than applauding such an initiative. NSF is one of the most valuable institutions in the Federal government. It funds most of the basic scientific research done by universities. A cut of 62% would gut US scientific research.
87
As a scientist, I can say that this is his best proposal (only it doesn't go far enough). Zeroing the NSF would be the best thing government could do for science. The NSF supports a closed club whose members award each other grants. It is proverbial among scientists that an original idea is the kiss of death for a grant proposal. The NSF doesn't contribute to the strength of American science; in fact, it weakens it by forcing scientists to be conformist and unoriginal. Research on self-indulgent "sandboxes" like string theory contributes nothing to the country.
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, Mo. 63130
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, Mo. 63130
1
Libertarians think the private sector will rush in to make up for the loss of government funding, without giving thought to the fact that 1) private philanthropies tend to fund research important to the people who run them, not based on scientific merit or value; 2) corporate funding focuses on projects that will be potentially profitable in the short term, not those that expand our knowledge and may take a long time to make money for people; and 3) the reason the NSF exists is because the private sector finding wasn't there in the first place.
4
According to people like you, *every* institution is one of "the most valuable" institutions in the Federal Government. In reality, something like this can be done more efficiently by the free market. Out there, not every single last oddball pet project will get funded, no. But the research projects that truly are worthwhile will be funded by people who think they could profit from them. And that is a good thing.
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans?"
Libertarian ideals sound unrealistic and naive.
In a newly forming society of highly independent, self-sufficient men and women, libertarian ideas of limited government are desirable to gain consensus to form a government. The infant US had such a society of independent, risk-taking immigrants, who came to these shores fleeing powerful, tyrannical governments. The Founding Fathers compromised a strong central government to gain the consent of the people to form a nation. They soon suffered the failure of a weak central government and had to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution. Even then the Constitution provided limited powers, but it proved workable for what was still an infant society.
In a more mature, complex society, as we now have, we need a federal government that is capable of meeting the more interdependent needs of the people. Today, most people cannot be self-sufficient, providing their own food, shelter, education and protection.
Our society does sacrifice some privacy for security, but the alternative is a government that cannot protect its people. As to fighting "international villainy", did libertarians learn nothing from 9/11? The villainy of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan reached our shores and the villainy of ISIS in the Middle East is finding its way into our midst.
Libertarianism is naive and does not meet the needs of our society.
Libertarian ideals sound unrealistic and naive.
In a newly forming society of highly independent, self-sufficient men and women, libertarian ideas of limited government are desirable to gain consensus to form a government. The infant US had such a society of independent, risk-taking immigrants, who came to these shores fleeing powerful, tyrannical governments. The Founding Fathers compromised a strong central government to gain the consent of the people to form a nation. They soon suffered the failure of a weak central government and had to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new Constitution. Even then the Constitution provided limited powers, but it proved workable for what was still an infant society.
In a more mature, complex society, as we now have, we need a federal government that is capable of meeting the more interdependent needs of the people. Today, most people cannot be self-sufficient, providing their own food, shelter, education and protection.
Our society does sacrifice some privacy for security, but the alternative is a government that cannot protect its people. As to fighting "international villainy", did libertarians learn nothing from 9/11? The villainy of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan reached our shores and the villainy of ISIS in the Middle East is finding its way into our midst.
Libertarianism is naive and does not meet the needs of our society.
24
His dad is a Libertarian with principles, he is a confused opportunist riding on daddy's coattails with a bad hairpiece.
12
He's not running as a libertarian because he's a professional politician and he realizes it's an ideology that only a tiny minority agrees with.
9
I have no reason to entertain the fantasy that Paul won't be purchased by the same corporate snakes which own all our politicians. Nothing will change. Our democracy is a sham.
13
We have a democracy? I thought it was bought and paid for long ago.
1
Paul is an empty lab coat. For a physician to call for the cuts in government science support and then advocate big military $$$, ' Puhleese!
70
This is all so ridiculous I assumed at first it was a parody, an attack on Libertarian ideals in the guise of praising them. Yes, by all means get these into the public eye! Perhaps then the fools who look no further than its drug policy will see the Mad Max world Libertarianism would wish to impose on what the rest of us call "civilization." Speak out, Mr. Paul, and save us from yourself.
32
I need to keep reading writers like this to wrap my head around the definition of "libertarian." It used to mean,back in the days of William Safire, conservative in government spending but liberal in personal cultural and social choices.
But this author is holding Paul's views to a newer, more radical view of how a libertarian sees the world. And I find it quite utopian. A person who doesn't believe in government at all, seeing every governmental action as a curb on "personal" and "national " liberty.
But such views might sound good in theory, but in practice? What kind of country would this be if taxes couldn't be collected by some entity? How could the country fight wars without a national defense department? And who would set national education standards if that agency were abolished too?
I had to laugh at this line: "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts." Do libertarians really think the private sector--so busy developing lifestyle pharmaceuticals-- will be able to handle another outbreak of ebola, or find a quick vaccine for the latest bacterial infection? Or pursue solutions for climate change if there is no immediate profit?
A libertarian America would be a recipe for chaos and disaster, irrespective of a Rand Paul candidacy.
But this author is holding Paul's views to a newer, more radical view of how a libertarian sees the world. And I find it quite utopian. A person who doesn't believe in government at all, seeing every governmental action as a curb on "personal" and "national " liberty.
But such views might sound good in theory, but in practice? What kind of country would this be if taxes couldn't be collected by some entity? How could the country fight wars without a national defense department? And who would set national education standards if that agency were abolished too?
I had to laugh at this line: "To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts." Do libertarians really think the private sector--so busy developing lifestyle pharmaceuticals-- will be able to handle another outbreak of ebola, or find a quick vaccine for the latest bacterial infection? Or pursue solutions for climate change if there is no immediate profit?
A libertarian America would be a recipe for chaos and disaster, irrespective of a Rand Paul candidacy.
81
The leaders of the Libertarian cause were the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX collecting government welfare while practicing their religious freedom of abusing children.
3
>>"But this author is holding Paul's views to a newer, more radical view of how a libertarian sees the world. "
You got it, and I assume you know the significant difference in Pro-Liberty versus Anti-Gummint. This writer, and Reason (sic) are the triumph of anti-gummint libertarianism. For that crowd, being only 5% of Americans, anti-gummint social conservatism is a way to increase their numbers, and their funding. No solutions, just Eric Hoffer's True Believers, "united by hatred."
The classical-liberal and classical-libertarian definition of fiscally responsible and socially tolerant is still a majority of Americans, by actual polling, but offers nothing for the power-seekers among us. Lord Acton nailed it.
You got it, and I assume you know the significant difference in Pro-Liberty versus Anti-Gummint. This writer, and Reason (sic) are the triumph of anti-gummint libertarianism. For that crowd, being only 5% of Americans, anti-gummint social conservatism is a way to increase their numbers, and their funding. No solutions, just Eric Hoffer's True Believers, "united by hatred."
The classical-liberal and classical-libertarian definition of fiscally responsible and socially tolerant is still a majority of Americans, by actual polling, but offers nothing for the power-seekers among us. Lord Acton nailed it.
2
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20% from the CDC shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62%, and taking a 25% chunk out of NASA, among other cuts", while Senator Paul has proposed a two-year $190 billion budget increase in military spending.
"Credit" for nihilism and war-funding ?
"Credit" for defunding science, research, technology and some of the most talented minds in the country ?
What backwater is Rand Paul running for President of ?
What year is Rand Paul living in ?
Defund the country's most accomplished public agencies while overfunding the country's most failed public agencies (the military-industrial wrecking ball) ?
And that's not even mentioning Rand Paul's discomfort with the Civil Rights Act and his comparison of universal healthcare to 'slavery'.
America has little in the way of spending problems, except for the United States military.
What America has is a collapsed revenue problem, caused partly by the massive reduction of federal and state incomes taxes on the wealthiest Americans over the last 35 years thanks to no-new-tax-nincompoopery and caused partly by collapsed worker wages and collapsed consumer demand carefully orchestrated by the 0.1%'s and right-wing's consistent effort to devalue workers and worker rights.
Rand Paul has a few good ideas about drug and prison reform, but his overall views on reality are half-baked.
The legend of Aqua Buddha shall remain Rand Paul's finest contribution to society.
"Credit" for nihilism and war-funding ?
"Credit" for defunding science, research, technology and some of the most talented minds in the country ?
What backwater is Rand Paul running for President of ?
What year is Rand Paul living in ?
Defund the country's most accomplished public agencies while overfunding the country's most failed public agencies (the military-industrial wrecking ball) ?
And that's not even mentioning Rand Paul's discomfort with the Civil Rights Act and his comparison of universal healthcare to 'slavery'.
America has little in the way of spending problems, except for the United States military.
What America has is a collapsed revenue problem, caused partly by the massive reduction of federal and state incomes taxes on the wealthiest Americans over the last 35 years thanks to no-new-tax-nincompoopery and caused partly by collapsed worker wages and collapsed consumer demand carefully orchestrated by the 0.1%'s and right-wing's consistent effort to devalue workers and worker rights.
Rand Paul has a few good ideas about drug and prison reform, but his overall views on reality are half-baked.
The legend of Aqua Buddha shall remain Rand Paul's finest contribution to society.
203
You hit that one right on the head, "The lack of revenue from tax evasion." And the inability of our elected leaders to fix the tax code. Without the revenues we don't have the resources to employ the middle class to fixi what is broke in America, like the roads and bridges, Amtrak, and taking care of the health needs of our citizens, especially the children.
4
"For a true libertarian, the government’s power to tax should be used only to protect our natural rights to our lives and property."
That's the rub, though. What are our "natural rights"? How and why are natural property rights distinguishable from the natural right to life? What does the right to life entail Are both rights subject to reinterpretation in the light of modernity and changes in ethics? Are both subject to interpretation within the confines of libertarianism? What is government's role when your property conflicts with my right to life? Does the response vary with circumstance and the realities of history? How does libertarianism perceive the impact of luck on choice and the exercise of rights, and is it permissible for government to level the playing field when luck is a factor? What dangers does libertarianism pose to the exercise of natural rights?
No doubt there stock answers to these questions. But the answers are what makes libertarianism sound heady and ridiculous.
That's the rub, though. What are our "natural rights"? How and why are natural property rights distinguishable from the natural right to life? What does the right to life entail Are both rights subject to reinterpretation in the light of modernity and changes in ethics? Are both subject to interpretation within the confines of libertarianism? What is government's role when your property conflicts with my right to life? Does the response vary with circumstance and the realities of history? How does libertarianism perceive the impact of luck on choice and the exercise of rights, and is it permissible for government to level the playing field when luck is a factor? What dangers does libertarianism pose to the exercise of natural rights?
No doubt there stock answers to these questions. But the answers are what makes libertarianism sound heady and ridiculous.
16
>"How and why are natural rights distinguishable from the natural right to life?"
How is the right to Liberty distinguishable from the right to Life, both being precisely equal ... as shown clearly by the definition of unalienable.
And for the religious among us, is the woman's God-given Right to Liberty the only God-given right to be suspended, and for how long? Or is it that God changed Her mind on universal human rights?
How is the right to Liberty distinguishable from the right to Life, both being precisely equal ... as shown clearly by the definition of unalienable.
And for the religious among us, is the woman's God-given Right to Liberty the only God-given right to be suspended, and for how long? Or is it that God changed Her mind on universal human rights?
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts.:
I for one do not see the value of these cuts. I would be very interested in knowing WHO Mr Paul wants to fight radical Islam. I doubt if the volunteer resonse will be great.
I for one do not see the value of these cuts. I would be very interested in knowing WHO Mr Paul wants to fight radical Islam. I doubt if the volunteer resonse will be great.
28
One more piece on Rand Paul's so-called "libertarianism" that doesn't mention his support of government interference in women's reproductive rights.
106
Libertarians don't support women's reproductive rights. Libertarianism is very much a case of "Liberty for me, but not for thee."
3
That's why the majority of libertarians rejects the extreme social conservatism of both Ron and Rand Paul, as Doherty and Reason suck up to the extreme socons and their perverse rejection of equal rights.
Then again, "reproductive rights" are a strange diversion from the woman's unalienable right to Liberty, which is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to Life ... the very definition of unalienable ... ignored by BOTH extremes in the abortion "issue." Jefferson and the Constitutional Convention knew the definition, and the 9th amendment incorporates Jefferson's unalienable rights into the Bill of Rights, intentionally.
Has America's revolution in individual liberties been defeated?
Then again, "reproductive rights" are a strange diversion from the woman's unalienable right to Liberty, which is precisely equal to the fetal child's unalienable right to Life ... the very definition of unalienable ... ignored by BOTH extremes in the abortion "issue." Jefferson and the Constitutional Convention knew the definition, and the 9th amendment incorporates Jefferson's unalienable rights into the Bill of Rights, intentionally.
Has America's revolution in individual liberties been defeated?
It sounds like you're calling for a consistency of perspective from the candidates.
Good luck with that.
Politicians select platforms like they visit a salad bar, choosing the options that come with the most green ($$$).
Good luck with that.
Politicians select platforms like they visit a salad bar, choosing the options that come with the most green ($$$).
9
Libertarianism, like socialism, capitalism, etc. is just that, an "ism'. These "isms" appeal to young people during their formative years but are usually discarded upon the discovery that such intellectual purity is not workable in the real world.
If "liberty is your highest value" it becomes difficult to hold a society together when hundreds of millions of people have to live together in fixed borders. How to you grant everyone total liberty and control pollution, care for the disadvantaged, or maintain infrastructure? How about public schooling?
Mr. Paul has discovered that adhering to a Libertarian purity may get him the votes of some young people living in their parent's basement but will not win the votes of those who acknowledge that compromising of various "isms" is necessary to be elected President.
If "liberty is your highest value" it becomes difficult to hold a society together when hundreds of millions of people have to live together in fixed borders. How to you grant everyone total liberty and control pollution, care for the disadvantaged, or maintain infrastructure? How about public schooling?
Mr. Paul has discovered that adhering to a Libertarian purity may get him the votes of some young people living in their parent's basement but will not win the votes of those who acknowledge that compromising of various "isms" is necessary to be elected President.
43
Libertarianism has never been intentionally practiced in any government simply because society needs at least some rules and regulations. To say "protect my freedom" while doing nothing to protect anyone from being ripped off or poisoned by any business is not freedom. What it really means is the freedom by those with the power of money to exploit those without. Look to any third world nightmare for the best examples of unintentional Libertarianiem.
163
Jose,
The "regulations" against businesses ripping people off under a Libertarian system would be stronger. For example, there would be no "Too Big To Fail." The U.S. has printed trillions to prop up the failed financial system. I can't think of a bigger rip-off.
Moreover, big government requires the help of corporations to carry out their programs. They rip us off left and right. A typical Liberal might argue for more stringent regulation, but the only effective solution is to limit the size of government.
The "regulations" against businesses ripping people off under a Libertarian system would be stronger. For example, there would be no "Too Big To Fail." The U.S. has printed trillions to prop up the failed financial system. I can't think of a bigger rip-off.
Moreover, big government requires the help of corporations to carry out their programs. They rip us off left and right. A typical Liberal might argue for more stringent regulation, but the only effective solution is to limit the size of government.
Societies do not form rules for normative reasons. e.g., slavery did not spread to America because anyone thought it was just and right. It spread because it people profited from it. Democracy did not succeed because it was more just than the alternatives (though it was, thankfully), it spread because it reduced the cost of legitimizing government.
There is nothing even remotely libertarian about third-world hell-holes; libertarians do not advocate chaos or corruption. Nor is there anything libertarian about allowing corporations to rip off or poison people; these are examples of fraud and force, which libertarianism opposes on principle.
There is nothing even remotely libertarian about third-world hell-holes; libertarians do not advocate chaos or corruption. Nor is there anything libertarian about allowing corporations to rip off or poison people; these are examples of fraud and force, which libertarianism opposes on principle.
Of course he is distancing himself from libertarians who hate the government because if you hate the government you are no different than the people who blew up the government building in Oklahoma City.
51
Proposing such drastic cuts in the CDC and NSF displays either profound ignorance, or a dishonest attempt to pander to dangerously uninformed voters. Luckily, Paul can't get elected.
76
"Do libertarian ideals sound heady, even ridiculous, to many Americans? Sure"
That's because it's a bunch of nonsense to begin with.
That's because it's a bunch of nonsense to begin with.
112
It's interesting hearing from the fringe. The only way to satisfy this particular one would be to give them an island of their own and leave them to their own devices. Living in a community, especially a diverse one, won't do for a true libertarian.
38
Rand Paul is at least smart enough to understand that if he campaigned on the libertarian dream espoused here it would ensure his defeat in the primaries and end his political career forever.
Before criticising Rand Paul for calling his libertarian supporters albatrosses, the writer should list some states or nations who have successfully adopted his libertarian model so we know what kind of society libertarians envision for America. Seems to me a libertarian nation would end up being a giant sweat shop for developed nations.
Before criticising Rand Paul for calling his libertarian supporters albatrosses, the writer should list some states or nations who have successfully adopted his libertarian model so we know what kind of society libertarians envision for America. Seems to me a libertarian nation would end up being a giant sweat shop for developed nations.
23
When our country was founded, it was considered an experiment in democracy. There may have been no other examples to point toward, but the theory was sound and the virtues seemed worthwhile. Somebody has got to try a libertarian society first. It wouldn't be a big sweatshop, though sweatshops would be permitted as long as they were truly voluntary. When everything is voluntary, then you know that *if* somebody is still working in a sweatshop, then all of his other options in life must logically be much worse. Thus, the sweatshop is a net benefit, and it shouldnt be banned.
None of the Republican Candidates can be considered a threat with the stance they have taken Their comment have reached in to the category of the bizarre.
Ted Cruz can't legally run for President even though his mother was a US Citizen. He was born in Canada has a Canadian Birth Certificate and his father once served fought side by side with Fidel Castro and at one time; might not have been allowed into the United States. The Castro factor is the the reason he was born in Canada.
Ted Cruz can't legally run for President even though his mother was a US Citizen. He was born in Canada has a Canadian Birth Certificate and his father once served fought side by side with Fidel Castro and at one time; might not have been allowed into the United States. The Castro factor is the the reason he was born in Canada.
9
See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. Having a parent who is an American citizen at the time of birth is all that is necessary.
cite: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
cite: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Americans born abroad of at least one US citizen parent are US citizens (although it gets more complicated in generation three).
Ted Cruz is perfectly able under the law to run for President. Just as John McCain (born in Panama) was.
That he'd would be a ghastly President is not relevant; he can run.
(If you don't believe me, ask the State Department.)
Ted Cruz is perfectly able under the law to run for President. Just as John McCain (born in Panama) was.
That he'd would be a ghastly President is not relevant; he can run.
(If you don't believe me, ask the State Department.)
1
I think Paul understands the reality that no third party stands a chance unless/until there is major campaign finance reform, so he's trying a side door, Republican Lite approach. He watched his dad fail admirably over the decades so this is probably his only play for any hope of broad based acceptance by an apathetic electorate, half of whom don't even vote. Unless you're stupid rich, your say gets no audience by those making policy in the room.
14
The whole libertarian shtick is a Republican scam aimed at a segment of conservative voters who seriously believe that it is possible to dismantle the full blown administrative state managed by a powerful political executive that has existed in this country for over 60 years at least. It's not. Indeed Republican presidents have been amongst the most aggressive expanders of it's boundaries. G. W. Bush in the post 9/11 period for example. Thus the author of this piece is either a shill promoting the scam or living in fantasy land. Paul as a candidate faces the same trade off between a completely phony bill of goods and the need to deal with reality.
85
'Thus the author of this piece is either a shill promoting the scam or living in fantasy land.'
Or both.
I'd both for both.
Or both.
I'd both for both.
6
Will ineptitude precede the fall
Of the "libertarian" Rand Paul,
Liberty for the Wealthy,
Wall Street and the stealthy,
His arrogance doth appall!
Of the "libertarian" Rand Paul,
Liberty for the Wealthy,
Wall Street and the stealthy,
His arrogance doth appall!
99
Mr. Doherty suggests that Sen. Paul’s proposed 20% cut to the CDC, a 62% cut to the NSF, and a 25% cut to NASA is a good thing. Umm - excuse me? Cutting the budgets of those essential institutions, which protect public health and invest in science and technologies for the future, is nothing short of insanely dumb.
Lord help us from such misguided ideologues as Sen. Paul and Mr. Doherty.
Lord help us from such misguided ideologues as Sen. Paul and Mr. Doherty.
249
The whole right wing is in denial that every penny of government spending is someone's income so all their budget cut proposals would only reduce the GDP.
19
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Fred Bastiat
1
"To Mr. Paul’s credit, he’s suggested slashing 20 percent from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shrinking the National Science Foundation by 62 percent, and taking a 25 percent chunk out of NASA, among other cuts."
This is to his credit?!? There is no "out-of-control spending" in Washington; to the contrary, the government does not spend enough, especially in a still-weak economy. Republican-endorsed spending cuts would weaken it still further.
"It seems Mr. Paul prefers the term 'constitutional conservative' to 'libertarian.' But it’s a fairly empty distinction."
This offers yet another clue that Rand Paul is a "fairly empty" politician. It's also a sign that on other matters, in particularly social issues, his stances are nowhere near true libertarian views. His foreign policy proposals can make some of the other supposedly top-tier GOP presidential contenders look coherent on the issues. Now that he's seeking the Republican nomination, Paul's prior defense beliefs are of course constantly evolving. He's also spent too much time in the same place as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, so repetition of mindless mantras may have been inevitable.
This is to his credit?!? There is no "out-of-control spending" in Washington; to the contrary, the government does not spend enough, especially in a still-weak economy. Republican-endorsed spending cuts would weaken it still further.
"It seems Mr. Paul prefers the term 'constitutional conservative' to 'libertarian.' But it’s a fairly empty distinction."
This offers yet another clue that Rand Paul is a "fairly empty" politician. It's also a sign that on other matters, in particularly social issues, his stances are nowhere near true libertarian views. His foreign policy proposals can make some of the other supposedly top-tier GOP presidential contenders look coherent on the issues. Now that he's seeking the Republican nomination, Paul's prior defense beliefs are of course constantly evolving. He's also spent too much time in the same place as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, so repetition of mindless mantras may have been inevitable.
118
Presumably, libertarians oppose science and support disease.
23
@ Matt Guest
"There is 'no out-of-control spending' in washington."
You are truly lost. Our money is thrown out every single day on pointless government programs. Bush's military campaign in the sand land was a clear example of out of control spending in Washington. As is all of the medicare and medicade expansion under the ACA. It's glaringly obvious washington is running amok with our tax dollars.
"There is 'no out-of-control spending' in washington."
You are truly lost. Our money is thrown out every single day on pointless government programs. Bush's military campaign in the sand land was a clear example of out of control spending in Washington. As is all of the medicare and medicade expansion under the ACA. It's glaringly obvious washington is running amok with our tax dollars.
2
Yes, less science and more ideology. That's just what we need.