The Media Treatment of Rand Paul - Knee Jerk Reactionism by Mental Midgets

Great Debates
1

Page 1 of 2

To preface this thread, I know there is another thread about Rand Paul already. However, I am going to cover slightly different topics and I want everyone to pay attention to what I am about to write, rather than simply hop onto a thread that has already hundreds of replies. As you all probably recall, I created a thread about Ron Paul and a few threads about Libertarianism. I was a strong supporter of Ron Paul in 2008. I have read extensively from economic literature, history, and constitutional law. How many of you can say the same? It infuriates me when I witness the son of the most brilliant economist, philosopher and libertarian thinker in the country being tarnished and relentlessly attacked by people who possess less than a fraction of the intellect of he and his father, seeing as their beliefs come from a tradition of scholarly study, lifetimes absorbed in economic literature, with a lineage that includes brilliant economists, learned historians, and majors in constitutional law (not to mention the Founders, those that actually wrote the Constitution). To top it off, many on the mainstream left adopt a posture of undeserved accomplishment and elitist self aggrandizement which flies in the face of the ignorance that spews forth constantly from these pampered arrogant tools we foolishly charge with “informing” the public. We should all be embarrassed by our national media. There is a notion developing from some on the left that Rand Paul is now somehow on par with Sarah Palin in intellect, playing as it is on the media created narrative that portrays Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and those who protest excessive spending and debt as backwards and unsophisticated. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I know that very few here will actually take the time to read the literature and educate yourselves on the essentials of the libertarian philosophy that Ron Paul and his son adhere to. I know this because in past posts people generally just refused to read the links I provided and respond in any meaningful way, resorting instead to transforming what I hoped would be an intellectual debate into childish name calling and intentional obfuscation of the issue. I know it is easier to stay in your comfort zone and become simply a passive “zombie” allowing your world view to be shaped and molded by external forces like the hilariously incompetent “reporters” on tv (both Left and Right). Its easier and you don’t have to do any serious work. I am not satisfied with that, which is why I took multiple economics and statistics classes in college as well as classes in Constitutional Law. Furthermore, simply on my own, I have immersed myself in history books and economic literature in the past four years or so in a concerted effort to better understand the world around me, the economic problems we face and, most importantly, how agendas and political motives have obscured the truth through tools like constant revisionist efforts to rewrite history. Its an effort to sift through all the propaganda, but one that I feel was worth it.

I want to illustrate the foundations of my beliefs (and Rand and Ron Paul’s) by listing the literature I recommend to any serious thinker on these subjects. I linked to several of these books in a previous thread. I am sure many of you thought that I just copied a list of books from a blog or something. I want to stress very strongly, I have read each and everyone of these books cover to cover. I used a highlighter, took notes and I truly believe I have conquered some of the most challenging economic literature written to date. I don’t expect each and every one of you to do what I did, but if you desire to become politically astute and understand the world you live in a little better, I suggest you read some of these masterpieces. For my efforts, I believe I can consider myself an advanced student in the scholarship of liberty.
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig Von Mises, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949

The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich A. Hayek, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1988

America’s Great Depression, Murry Rothbard, 5th ed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000

Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano, 2nd ed. Oakland, California: Independent Institute, 1990

The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, G. Edward Griffin, 4th ed. Westlake Villiage, California: American Media, 2002

Dieing to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, Robert Pape, New York: Random House, 2006

The Real Lincoln, Thomas DiLorenzo. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Springer 1st ed., 1988

The Law, Frederic Bastiat, Filiquarian Publishing, LLC., 2006

The Case Against the Fed, Murray N. Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2nd ed., 2007

The Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises, CreateSpace, 2010

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Thomas Sowell, Basic Books, 2002
There are plenty more great works extolling the virtues of a society based on liberty that I have read or would like to read. These are the creme de la creme. I am not listing these books I have read and studied to boast of my intellectual pursuits (I am trying), nor to provide a helpful reading list for those of you attempting to become more astute (though this is an authoritative list that all with an interest in politics should read). The reason I am listing these literary works is to demonstrate the patent absurdity for all who associate Ron and Rand Paul with dumb conservative celebrities like Sarah Palin. Not only is it an insult to those men, it is an insult to me and all the intellectuals and philosophers throughout the ages who have defending a society based upon liberty. Men such as the authors of the books listed above. Men like Thomas Pain and Lysander Spooner. Men whose intellect and education far surpassed any of these clowns running our country at the moment. Truly the past week should be an embarrassment to any of us who still retain our self respect and reject baseless accusations and character assassination perpetrated en masse against someone who the establishment considers a threat.

First, I want to make clear that I don’t consider Rand Paul perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I hold the utmost respect for his father, Congressman Ron Paul, and I reverently respect and hold dear the lineage of libertarian thinkers and philosophers who I have already mentioned. Yet, I understand that Rand Paul is naive and in a major way unprepared for the task of becoming the face of the Tea Party movement. Not because he doesn’t understand the issues, but because he has not been involved in politics for most of his life and he isn’t used to taking criticism and he desperately needs some better coaching and some new advisors. I hope his father can be more active in campaigning for his son and give him some advice on how to handle certain questions and situations that come up. Remember, though, this is a man who is willing to leave his comfortable medical practice to take continuous attacks from the entire establishment media because he is deeply concerned about the direction of our country. He is deeply concerned about the debt and averting a dollar crisis. He is deeply concerned about us becoming like Greece in short order if he doesn’t speak out. And in a larger sense, I see the Tea Party movement as positive for one reason. In the past people are willing to send only a candidate to Washington in order to get some of the federal “loot” and send it back to his district in the form of earmarks. Now, the people want a candidate who WON’T do any of that instead promising a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and cut spending, even if it negatively affects their own district. This is an incredible revalation. If more people take on this attitude, it may well be possible to cut spending significantly and avert a crisis. This is good news.

As usual, however, the media feels the need to attack anyone who they feel is threatening. Rand Paul successfully beat the establishment candidate and overnight became the face of the Tea Party. Immediately, he became subject to constant and relentless attacks for a continual three days in a row. It started simply enough with Rand Paul expressing support for the Civil Rights bill, yet attempting to explain the difference between private property and public property and the Constitutional limitations of government power. What he said was this:

He would unequivocally support nine of the ten provisions in the Civil Rights Act. In the provision that called for “public accommodation”, which although incredibly well intended, violates the concept of property rights, he would support further debate on that specific provision in an effort to end segregation in a different manner that is consistent with the Constitution and respect for private property. He believes, as do I, that once you allow government to violate private property to do good things, it opens up the door to the possibility of government regulating every aspect of business and violating your property for other, not so noble reasons. This has occurred.

This is the video that started it all off:

Rand Paul is 100% correct in everything he said here. There is absolutely NOTHING contained in this clip that should give any thinking, rational person pause. The only ones who do are the knee jerk reactionary liberals who see any opening available to tarnish a candidate that they consider a thread, stooping to new lows in obtaining a cheap victory and preying upon the ignorance of the masses at large. Touch the Sacred Cow and you will get mercilessly hounded, regardless of how truthful or historically accurate you are. The fact that Rand Paul was two when the bill was passed, did not EVER say anything about modifying any civil rights legislation in his platform, intending instead to focus on the vastly more important issues of substance, such as the economic crisis, reforming Washington, ending the wars, and restoring civil liberties while making the rest of the Senate consider the Austrian, Free Market solutions to our problems is not important to report to the public I guess. No, its much more important to pick out a very minor philosophic portion of a larger interview about a bill passed when Rand Paul was two years old that will never be repealed and use it to aggressively target Rand for an attempt at character assassination.

Following this was the famous Rachael Maddow interview, and I am sure he was totally unprepared for the relentless assault he endured on an issue that was not even part of his campaign. Even more shocking, I am sure, was that Maddow had been very fair to both Rand and his father Ron is the past. It was almost as if she had taken orders from the DNC to attack him. Throughout the interview you could get the feeling that what she was looking for was to get him to say yes to the question “Do you think a black person should be allowed to be turned away from a business because of the color of their skin?”. Then that clip would have been edited down and run endlessly in campaign attack ads completely taking the original argument out of context. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification on a subject and asking tough questions. But implying that a belief in property rights and the Constitution makes one a racist is completely baseless. To take this tactic is cowardly and offensive. A great many proponents of civil rights have criticized the unconstitutionality of infringing on property rights, not because they are racist but because they understand the history of governmental control and expansion. Throughout history we have had very good bills signed into law that had bad aspects to them. The Civil Rights Act was one such example.

Since that incident, many people of conscience who are not media zombies or partisan hacks have come to the defense of Rand Paul for a variety of reasons. One example is Oteil Burbridge, bassist for the Allman Brothers Band. He posted this letter to Rachael Maddow’s blog. By the way, he is a black man and a liberal:

*Rachel,

I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here’s where I disagree with you.

  1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn’t want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don’t want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I’d rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.

  2. There’s two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can’t go in D.C. and I can’t go in Georgia. That’s called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.

  3. I respectfully say that I think you’re wrong to imply that Rand Paul is a racist for believing that.

Woolworth’s should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth’s and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black’s have a choice now that we didn’t back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth’s if that’s who owns the store? I’ll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn’t know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth’s be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all “have to” buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn’t be smeared as a racist.

I love you to pieces and as a person of color I identify with your pain, but I’m glad these racists and homophobes want to come out into the open now. I don’t think Rand Paul is one of them.

Oteil Burbridge

Bassist Allman Brothers Band

Lawrenceville, Georgia*

I will offer a few points of my own in defense of Rand Paul:

  1. Despite what the hysterical left is trying to convince people of, if we reestablish the principles of property rights as we defend free speech, America will not become re segregated tomorrow. Although racism certainly still exists, any segregated restaurant, even in the South would be boycotted and picketed out of existence in ten seconds. The people wouldn’t stand for it.

  2. As Thomas Woods, who holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and serves as resident scholar and senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, wrote recently:

*"Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)

As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible."*

2

Page 2 of 2

  1. The government intrusion and laws have done more to oppress black people throughout our history than anyone. Jim Crow laws consisted of a giant social engineering apparatus of oppression that forced segregation. The peaceful abolitionist movement that had its origins at the time of our founding was sabotaged again and again by the federal government, especially with laws like the Fugitive Slave Act.

  2. It is a fallacy to suggest that government guns and force and intimidation is the only way to enact positive change in society. Our government stirs up racial tensions and keeps racism alive through its use of collectivist ideology that sees people according to groups, rather than according to their character and actions. I am reminded of what one astute learned man named Ron Paul said about how libertarianism and the emphasis on the individual is the ultimate antidote to racism:

*"Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."*

We must begin to see the racism argument, especially when used as an attack weapon by the left, for what it really is: A tool for Authoritarians to further divide the people while consolidating power for their benefit. This tactic is especially tragic when one begins to recognize the massive negative effect this has had on black Americans, systematically making poor black people dependent on government care, thus fearful and in a weakened position, destroying entire neighborhoods through their murderous drug laws, and systematically destroying economic opportunity for the most vulnerable among us.

If any have the time (I hope at least some of you do), please look at this fascinating documentary/debate with Walter Williams from the 1980’s where he systematically shows how the government has tilted the economic rules against black people, keeping from them economic opportunity, thus perpetuating a system of dependence and despair.

Its called The State Against Blacks:

Another tragedy that came out of Civil Rights Legislation is that while on the one hand government was atoning for some unforgivable, atrocious laws that it perpetrated on black people for far too long, it also postured as the savior and made private business the bad guy. What should have happened was getting rid of all public discrimination and segregation of any kind, repealing of all Jim Crow laws, acknowledgement of a great evil perpetrated on African Americans by the same government designed to protect them. We got that, but also we got the opening for government to violate property rights and portray itself as the savior.

Since the late 1970s we have seen affirmative action programs, welfare benefits, and government, instead of staying out of racial issues and protecting everybody equally, it started talking down to blacks, making them feel inferior, pushing “spokesmen” for black Americans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, men who Martin Luther King, Jr and Malcolm X would be embarrassed for. What we have witnessed is stalled progress of black Americans in society due to government policies like the War on Drugs, deteriorating public schools without the chance of vouchers or choice of any kind, and economic factors that are brilliantly detailed in the Walter Williams documentary I listed above.

Despite all of this, the modern day left argues that it alone owns issues of race in political life and labels all that question the 1964 Act or anything similar (affirmative action, welfare, ect.) as bigots and racists. Our wise overlords have decided the matter is closed and thats that. The irony that these same people have been pushing the most racially oppressive policies imaginable and the great civil rights leaders would be embarrassed by much of the modern day left alludes them.

All black Americans should be libertarians. The actual, tangible policies that Ron Paul and his son propose, such as ending the War on Drugs, releasing non violent drug offenders, ending the overseas wars, ending the death penalty, allowing vouchers and school choice and ending the central bank, repealing the most horrendous regressive tax of inflation. If Ron or Rand Paul had their way, these policies would do more for African Americans than anything that the Democratic Party has done in half a century. But the authoritarians are scared to death that these ideas of liberty catch on in the African American community.
Now, Rand Paul may be politically naive, he may be unpolished and not yet able to handle high pressure situations like the interview with Maddow. But he is certainly not dumb. His father taught him well, he just hasn’t refined his message yet. Also, I understand he has made some concessions and is tailoring his message to more conservative audiences. I am not entirely happy about that, but you have to do what is necessary to be elected, short of outright lying. I think he would vote like his dad 95% of the time. I find it funny that people just roll over literally on command when the major media report a “story”. Politicians career are ended and reputations ruined based on lies and propaganda. And you people just buy into it, not doing any homework, not thinking for yourselves at all. Its a sad state of affairs. We trust the media to inform us. How about informing us on Rand Paul’s major policy issues?

  1. Auditing the Federal Reserve and True Financial Regulatory Oversight and Reform:

Like his dad he favors complete transperancy of our banking system, ending too big to fail, restraining money creation, and restoring faith in the dollar. Allow liquidation of toxic assets.

  1. Cut Spending and Balance the Budget through a Constitutional Amendment

Pretty simple, you don’t spend more than you take in in revenue. Like any responsible American household.

  1. End the wars overseas and end the empire

Even though he doesn’t campaign on this issue, make no mistake about it Rand Paul will bring this debate to the senate and push for a withdrawal. He also believes that we should only go to war with a formal declaration of war. No more unconstitutional presidential war making.

  1. Campaign Finance Reform

  2. Term Limits

  3. Restore Civil Liberties

End the Patriot Act. Restore Habeas Corpus.

  1. End the Health Card Mandate

  2. End all Agricultural Subsidies, and all Corporate welfare.

  3. Push for true energy Innovation through the Marketplace. Stop subsidizing oil. Allow the Free Market to function to produce new and innovative alternative energies. If we did this in the 70s, we would all be driving electric and bio diesel vehicles by now. We would be off of oil.
    These are some very solid ideas and make up the platform of a true populist libertarian who will bring true change, not that cosmetic bullshit that we’re getting from that joker that currently occupies the White House. If you haven’t heard of these positions, I am not surprised. The media prefers to focus on meaningless musings on the role of government and of property rights in relation to a nearly fifty year old bill that will never be touched. And then they resort to lieing directly to the people, saying things like “Rand Paul supports repealing Civil Rights”, or “Rand Paul thinks its okay for a restaurant to refuse to serve a black man”. People are so conditioned and so dumbed down by our education system and shrinking attention spans that people can’t comprehend an adult discussion on the differences between public and private property and the role of the federal government in relation to it. Rand Paul is not a racist, neither was Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater simply desired to see a Constitutionally valid manner in which to end discrimination on private property. Many pro civil rights advocates took issue with this specific provision as well, yet these facts fly way over the heads of the average Americans. Its a sad state of affairs. This is the correct and proper position one should take:

Any private business can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Period.

None would dare come out and be known as an open racist in 2010. Plus it doesn’t make any economic sense. The notion, held by the left, that a government gun is the only thing preventing society from reverting to the Dark Ages is downright insulting. If a racist asshole wants to exclude a certain minority (blacks, mexicans, asians, jews) he can if it is on his property. All people of conscience would immediately boycott him and put him out of business. In fact, pure economic logic deems that his business would fail. If you use logic, allowing the racist the “right” to be a racist prick is the same right that keeps the government, or other interest groups from confiscating your property or telling you what you can and cannot do with your own land.
A consistent criticism I have of many on the left is the lack of intellectual thought and reasoning, not to mention a near complete absence of economic understanding. They react to issues based to emotion. So, liberals I implore you, put on your Thinking Caps and study these issues in a little more depth.

Furthermore, you should all take a good look in the mirror and fess up for your part in reinforcing a lazy media that lies, distorts and misinforms continuously. The treatment of Rand Paul for taking a well thought out, researched and constitutional view of property rights in regards to Civil Rights is abhorrent and indefensible. And all you do is repeat “he’s a bigot!, he’s a bigot!”. Cry me a river when the Federal Government wants to confiscate your property through eminent domain and you just learn at the eleventh hour about the importance of property rights. I will feel no sympathy. Sometimes there are issues that aren’t black and white and contain shades of grey. This is not one of those issues. You either own your property or the government owns your property there is no middle ground.

As a final cite, listen to this defense from a well known libertarian thinker (as he begins very tongue in cheek):

*What Rand Paul should have said, of course, is that he loves, no, he actually adores the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its entirety, including the punctuation, and that he sleeps with a copy of it under his pillow.

That is the only sensible answer for a politician to give.

The distinction between “government” and “private” property is lost on most voters.

Private property owners are free to say “No shoes, no shirt, no service”. Others have signs up that state that they reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. If it is your castle, you really should be able to refuse entry to anyone you want to refuse: left-handers, Okies, blacks, whites, Palin supporters, or people who think To Kill A Mockingbird is overrated.

And the left-handers, Okies, blacks, whites, Palinites, and Harper Lee fans should be free to boycott your ass and encourage all their friends to do the same.

As far as the effectiveness of the CRA of '64 goes, my public school classes at A.W. James Elementary school in Drew, Mississippi, were de facto segregated until 1969.

My doctor’s office in Merigold, Mississippi, had segregated waiting rooms (hello, Westerfields !) until the Doctor retired sometime in the mid-1970’s.

What changed everything? Simple economics. Boycotts. Shaming. The same remedies that Paul (foolishly, but truthfully) proposed in his interviews (as if he could go back in time to '64, and vote as a two-year-old senator). People generally don’t move to places that discriminate unfairly just for the hell of it. And they eventually stop shopping there. *

This was the cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement, protests, boycotts, and marches. This sparked the American people to reject racism personally and become more tolerant.
In conclusion, the objections I have seen to Rand Paul come from those I would describe as mental midgets, too dim to comprehend to nuances of a civilized discussion on the role of government yet at the same time pompous and self righteous in their posture of undeserved elitism. I hope you all are better than that.

Rand Paul, though naive to the game of politics, is well versed in history, Austrian economics and Constitutional Law. He is the son of the most famous libertarian intellectual alive today and will amount to great things once he learns the ropes. Not only is he smarter than Sarah Palin, he is smarter than Barack Obama. His father is vastly smarter than Barack Obama. What the media does is conflate image with substance. Obama is smart the way an actor is smart, able to play a role and read his lines without screwing up. In terms of actually understanding economics, US history or important applicable topics to the job at hand, he is an imbecil. He is heavily financed by Wall Street. He is a puppet of Corporate America and will do what his handlers demand of him. Ron Paul, and his son Rand, are completely uncontrollable and cannot be bought out and that scares the shit out of the establishment. The last thing they want is another politician that wants to Audit the Fed in the Senate no doubt.

So, while a dollar crisis is looming, the world economic system is collapsing around us, the Wall Street banks are robbing us blind with the blessings of the Obama administration, and we have two wars which we are losing that have been going on for seven and nine years respectively, you all would rather participate in the contrived character assassination of one of the only positive voices running for office this year. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

Can we get a single libertarian voice in the Senate? Is that so horrible? Is there something you intrinsically fear about balanced budgets and fiscal discipline?

I want to make this very clear: I spent a bit of time writing this and I expect an intellectual discussion on the campaign of Rand Paul and the newfound national spotlight on Libertarianism. In previous threads I have authored on this site, many were apparently not capable of intelligent discourse and resorted to name calling and sarcasm as a substitute for rational thought, debate skills, and discernment. Furthermore, I spent a while gathering what I felt were important links, youtube videos and backup for my points. These were promptly ignored by almost all on this site. I want everyone to read the links I post and please make an effort. If you watch a video or read a link and critique it with a modicum of sincerity and honesty, I will be glad to respond to any counter links and counter points you all raise. That is how I want this to go down.

Lets get to it.

3

Good luck with that. I want everybody to send me one dollar. It ain’t gonna happen.

I doubt anybody is going to read through a dense, dry 6, 000 word essay and watch 45 minute worth of video just so they can post to a message board.

If you want to start a discussion then you’re better off making it simple and readable. If you post a screed, as you just have, then you have stifled any chance of discussion of the subject, instead opening yourself to nothing more than dispute of the multiple points that you have raised.

If your point was just to witness then this is the place for it I guess, but don’t expect too many people to waste literally hours wading through all that.

4

As to being “not capable” of “intelligent discourse,” I would note that nothing you have posted indicates that you are more capable than many of your opponents. There are some smart-assed hecklers, but there are also thoughtful posters. Focusing on one sort of opponent instead of actually addressing the others, and wasting time and text picking fights with those who are most likely to react with anger, is a foolish way to engage in a serious discussion.

That sort of declaration at the beginning of a thread, (in addition to your thread title), is most often found in the diatribes of zealots, here to witness for their True Beliefs. There is no difference in tone between your screed and the rants of so many Young Earth Creationists or 9/11 Troothers, (or the occasional, lonely, Marxist).

You have chosen your presentation and I am not going to interfere–except to note that, if you continue to post random insults directed toward large numbers of posters with whom you disagree, I am going to simply shut this down.

5

Obviously false. Palin has tactical political insight far beyond the ineffective flailing that Paul has shown on the national stage.

Or perhaps the way an actual constitutional law scholar and editor of the Harvard law review is smart. Hard to tell.

Yes professor, any other assignments for the class?

P.S. Can you please link to more YouTube videos?

6

As to being “not capable” of “intelligent discourse,” I would note that nothing you have posted indicates that you are more capable than many of your opponents. There are some smart-assed hecklers, but there are also thoughtful posters. Focusing on one sort of opponent instead of actually addressing the others, and wasting time and text picking fights with those who are most likely to react with anger, is a foolish way to engage in a serious discussion.

That sort of declaration at the beginning of a thread, (to say nothing of your thread title), is most often found in the diatribes of zealots, here to witness for their True Beliefs. There is no difference in tone between your screed and the rants of so many Young Earth Creationists or 9/11 Troothers, (or the occasional, lonely, Marxist).

You have chosen your presentation and I am not going to interfere–except to note that, if you continue to post random insults directed toward large numbers of posters with whom you disagree, I am going to simply shut this down.

[ /Modding ]

7

Gee, I would think you’d want the people who disagree with you to have a little more freedom than that. Let them rip off the hoods of their civility, and show their real, sarcastic, name-calling selves. Then they could be shamed in the free market of ideas.

8

Rand Paul is not a very good libertarian.

One can defend his views of the Federal government having no place in regulating businesses, but he supports Federal laws to outlaw abortion.

He’s not a libertarian, he’s just on the fringe of the right-wing.

eta:

Rand supports a declaration of war for Afghanistan. Stop assigning him political positions you would like him to have and actually look at what he is saying.

I, too, question why everyone who disagrees with you must be considered ignorant, uneducated or stupid. Sometimes people just disagree.

9

I’m just really sorry you spent so much time reading bad economics. The Road to Serfdom has some good insights, but I think that’s about it.

10

If Ron Paul is so smart, why didn’t he tell his kid “Listen, Rand, you’re going to get some real bad press going on the Maddow show and opening your yap. Don;t do it, kid.”

And if you’re so smart, why didn’t you write him a few months ago making the same warning?

Maybe you’re not that good a judge of who’s smart and who isn’t?

11

Explain how a boycott will eradicate segregation in the real estate market better than the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Some people want to live in all white neighborhoods, so they will be attracted to houses in areas that do not permit non-whites. Some people don’t care about segregation, but they are attracted by the prices that are lower because non-whites cannot make offers. That leaves whites who are so enlightened they will act against their own self interest to make a statement. Are they really numerous enough to force a seller to change his policy against selling to non-whites? If you think so, you should spend less time reading economics tomes and more time in the real world. Segregated housing was against the self-interest of the sellers because it presumably depressed prices by excluding buyers, yet it persisted for over a century after slaves were freed. Why didn’t the market correct itself?

12

And not to continue hijacking, other than I think this is relevant, it seems to me that some tactical awareness would prevail if you really as smart as you’re claiming. Not only would the Pauls realize the likely outcome of going on the Maddow show, but I would think a brilliant person like yourself would realize the probable reaction of a GD reader to your initial lengthy diatribe (“Oh, God, will this guy give it a rest and let someone respond already to some of these points before he goes to make ALL of them?”) much less to your second post (“Oh, Jesus, there’s a SECOND one?”) I’m just saying–for a bunch of brilliant thinkers, you don’t seem to grasp presentation of your ideas very well, or tactics. So why should we trust you on your grasp of unproven sweeping economic ideas that seem counter-intuitive of what we already know of how human beings behave?

13

Plenty of people understand libertarian philosophy many simply disagree and don’t want it for America.

I like how you characterize Rachel Maddow as taking orders from the DNC then follow up with a letter saying she implied Rand Paul was a racist.

Of the people on TV she is probably the most qualified to question his political philosophy and question it. She is quite capable of coming her opinion without the DNC having any say what so ever. You do know she holds a doctorate in political philosophy right? no help from the the DNC needed.

She never said or implied Rand Paul was a racist. She put a lot of effort into trying to point out to the public and to a naive Paul that he supports a position that enables racists to use our government to further their agenda.

Americans do like using their government to further social agendas. Many do understand it comes at a cost to freedom, we are willing to endure that for a better society. Libertarianism is a fringe view in America. In that interview it was about time someone pointed it it.

I vote for Libertarians in various offices. I like some libertarian arguments and like to see them brought to the table. I’d vote for a Libertarian to represent me in the House.

To you asking for a Libertarian in the Senate, the answer is hell no. It is that horrible. Rand Paul would be replacing Jim Bunning who recently and famously held the senate hostage expressing his own fringe view on unemployment. We don’t need another fringe loon replacing him or anywhere else in the senate.

14

Great, the other Rand Paul thread has gotten mired in discussions of inspecting restaurant safety. (By the way, I’m pro-inspection, by government agents who fly from restaurant to restaurant via black helicopter.)

Word from down here in Texas:

To the OP: Did you read all that stuff in pursuit of a formal degree? If so, where? If not, why? You really do not have a future in writing propaganda. Convince us with your own words.

15

What jrodefeld and and presumably Rand Paul don’t understand is that institutional racism and any other structural or systematic prejudices might never go away unless some fair-minded people in a Constitutional Republic make laws that protect those in the minority from having their rights trampled.

Let’s take interracial marriage. It wasn’t until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that bans against interracial marriage were finally deemed unconstitutional across the land. However, had the court been strict Libertarians instead of being charged to uphold the Constitution in our Republic and just let society work that out themselves…

Imagine if we did live in a society where the ban on interracial marriage was never questioned because people just didn’t have a problem banning it. If it took nearly a quarter of a century after the court decision for the populace to finally have a majority that didn’t have a problem with it, how long would society had taken where nobody ever married outside their race because “that’s just the way things are?”

Is it possible that American society would have eventually decided that “Whites Only” signs on businesses was repugnant and not just the status quo, but I have my doubts. But that’s why institutional racism is something far more insidious than having Archie Bunker live on your block; when groups in a society systematically stiffle the rights of others with impunity, it takes a lot longer for alternative viewpoints to even be allowed, let alone become the norm.

Our history has shown that in ofrder to be fair, we need to look out for people who have been subjugated. Whether it was women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement or the current battle that the GLBT community is waging, often times minds couldn’t be changed until the laws were. And it’s sometimes a lot easier to change the law than a mind, for better or worse.

Now, as for Mr. Paul being a racist, I don’t believe he is. However he wouldn’t get my vote for being a racist; I would vote against him for being detatched from reality.

16

That’s not Mr. Paul, it’s Dr. Paul! (I agree that he’s probably not a racist. But many of his followers are.)

17

Mea culpa on his title; hopefully nobody confuses him with Ron Paul (or the non-doctorate husband of the Fish Sticks lady). I do agree with you that a lot of his supporters might be racist but I don’t think that’s relevant. I know it’s not to me. I do think that having that be a defining characteristic of your supporters makes mainstream acceptance (i.e. in a general election) a little less likely in many jurisdictions. Hopefully Kentucky being one of them…

18

I’m not sure that you have to be pro-choice to be a libertarian. One needn’t be a federalist, either.

However, I’d be interested in learning what other religious based positions he holds-- ie, on evolution, and SSM.

19

Yes. Someone should be watching and controlling the morons who created this mess and profited (and continue to profit) from it. Too big to fail, simply was a failure. It rewarded incompetence and rampant greed, perpetuating it.

Sounds nice in theory, but it’s only theory. Normal predictable “business as usual” can be handled this way, but shit happens, and when creating a budget and operating to it, you can’t predict all the shit happens things - wars, disasters, plagues, any and everything.

Was it Jefferson, or someone else, who wanted no foreign entanglements? Wars of defense (so called “just wars”) are far far different from wars of convenience, wars of “hegemony”, wars of empire, wars for “cheap oil” and simple conquest. Many of us see no reason to become “the empire”.

Isn’t this already supposedly what the law is? I’m not asking whether we actually follow it though, but isn’t it already the law?.

OK, but the devil is in the details. Some of us are not thrilled about recent decisions that appear to let corporations have an even bigger influence than they already had. But how to do it, without trampling on everyone’s rights to support the candidates they want?

No. Just no. There is no reason for this. We can already vote out the ones who are no good (we should do it more often, but there ya go). But when we find a good one, we should be able to keep him or her. Also, the added experience is a good thing.

A resounding yes. A hell yeah.

What mandate specifically?

I used to buy into the “too big to fail” theory (to some extent), but no longer. The problem is, companies (and especially the top leadership) like to talk about free market and some undefined “risks” to justify huge paychecks and bonuses for themselves, but are really protected (the welfare) from failure, from bad decisions or outright incompetence - at our expense. Our tax dollars went to bail them out and prop them up, but instead, went to even bigger paychecks and bonuses. So let them fail. If big risks justify big rewards, then the current “system” of no risk should bring no rewards.

See above, corporate welfare and protection from failure. Also, see above comment about “wars for ‘cheap oil’”. Right now, with the “failure protections” and bailouts and “sweetheart deals”, companies have no incentive to find alternate sources of energy/power. None.
[/quote]

I’ve been called a liberal, or librul, or various versions of whatever.

No biggy. If Ron Paul really is about the above things, all well and good. But, he will need to start articulating it better, more often, and more loudly. He also needs to think more carefully when he gets a loaded question, as the question posed by Rachel Maddow may have been. Because quite simply, the free (totally free and unfettered/unregulated) marketplace is not the answer to everything.

20

I’ll buy his principled stand on the Civil Rights Act just as soon as he applies the same libertarian principles to, say, the drug war.