Rand Paul is Not a Libertarian

hah! Just read this.

Cycloptichorn

I'm inclined to think Rand Paul has earned a place in the history books. Soon.

I may disagree with libertarians idea of the ideal government but I rather live under a libertarian regime then a Republican one.

For the Democratic challenger... this is potentially great news! And if the Democratic challenger isn't an incumbent, he just might pull off the win as well.

Which history books? The the history of political almost made it/has beens?

The history books involving people and events which used to be. As in has-been, so yes. You got it right.

I know he is trying his best... but is it possible for him to lose the election in Kentucky?

I'm hoping for a really raunchy sex scandal to fall out of Rand Paul's closet.

Yes. Depending on the opposition screwups (dead girl, live boy) he's got a darn good shot at losing.

Someone said that Rand is more articulate than his father and will, therefore, not be the butt of jokes his father is. I heard the guy mumble through too many inane speeches in the week since he earned national attention to call him articulate.

I have KY still going for Paul. But he certainly is off to an inauspicious start.
The "dead girl/live boy" reference, Roger, shows your age.
A southern politician said something to the effect that "The only way I can lose this election is if I am caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
Pop quiz! Who and when?

I've no idea. The phrase seems to have slipped into the common language.

Edwin Edwards, 4 time Gov of LA (not consecutively). It was 1983 and he was successfully waging a campaign against an incumbent.
He was incredibly corrupt (even by LA standards) and ended up getting a 10 year jail term in the early 1990's.
I will have to look that up. That's my memory.

Edwards, huh? Should'a known.

Did some Wikipedia searching on Edwards. I was wrong on the jail thing. He went in for 10 years in 2001 and is scheduled to come out in mid 2011, at the age of 83 or so. He was very clever with quips in his long career.

Although I agree they don't want to be tarred, I think that's mainly opportunism. Rand Paul's view of the Civil Rights Act are perfectly libertarian.

Orthodox libertarian doctrine cherishes most of the Civil Rights Act, but not all of it. Most importantly, it cherishes it for abolishing the Jim Crow laws. These laws had forced employers to discriminate against employees, forced businesses to discriminate against their customers, and forced government agencies to discriminate against their citizens. Jim Crow laws thwarted individual liberties, and libertarians bide them good riddance. By the same token, Libertarian orthodoxy also welcomed the Civil Rights Act for equalizing the enforcement of voting rights, and for desegregating government facilities---especially schools. But that's as far as it goes. Although libertarian orthodoxy frowns on discrimination between private parties, it never approved of the government criminalizing it. That's a regulation of private enterprise, which libertarians reject, and violates the freedom of contract, a central norm of theirs.

Rand Paul's views seem consistent with all of this. He said he agreed with 9 out of 10 titles of the Civil Rights act, but "would have raised questions" about title 2, which deals with discrimination between private parties. He's a libertarian alright. The libertarian pundid's problem with Rand Paul, then, isn't that he's too illibertarian. It's that he's too inept to effectively dodge an issue when campaign tactics require him to dodge it. But Paul's critics can't publically say,"we need a better issue-dodger; someone slicker, with more teflon on him". So they disparage his libertarian credentials instead.


Not generally true about libertarians. To begin with an obvious point, libertarians oppose infanticide as much as everybody else. And the central question of abortion---whether embryos are "close enough to being infants" to have human rights---is orthogonal to the principles of libertarianism. You can come down on either side of the abortion issue and still be a consistent libertarian.


That's true as far as it goes, but he is also "spewing" that this decision belongs to the states. Because Paul is running for federal office, that means he should end up voting against federal legislation like the late term abortion act or the federal marriage amendment. That's what his father did anyway---and run-of-the-mill Republicans didn't. From your perspective as a Democratic voter, that's the best deal you can expect from any Republican.


... both of which Rand Paul opposes, and the Republican mainstream supports.


On my credentials as a real, if increasingly softcore libertarian, I have to disagree with this. Libertarian embarrassment with Rand Paul may be justified on other grounds---it isn't justified by any deviations of Rand Paul's from libertarian orthodoxy.

Thomas,

When I want to know what "orthodox" Libertarians think, I go to the Libertarian Party (with the understanding that this is an American Libertarian group). They have a well articulated platform on all of these issues that was adopted by a democratic process.

www.lp.org

I find the view articulated in this platform to be quite reasonable-- I agree with them on social issues, even though I have a core philosophical disagreement with them on the role of government.

and a few horny rednecks opinions aside, sarah palin ain't no librarian

Well, they're not the only libertarian group out there, but fair enough---let's look at their platform. I'll admit that unlike Rand Paul, they are good-enough politicians to dodge toxic issues. So you won't find a plank in their platform that says outright: "We have mixed feelings on the Civil Rights Act of 1964." But the points I made in my last post are right there if you know where to look for them.


Source

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is part of America's legal framework. Most of its chapters protect voluntary trade. That's the chapters abolishing Jim Crow, which Rand Paul approves of. Chapter 2, however, does not protect voluntary trade. Rather, it compels involuntary trade. For example, if white hotel owners don't want to rent to black tenants, or white barkeepers don't want to serve black patrons, or white employers don't want to hire black applicants (*), the Civil Rights Act compels them to do it anyway. In this sense, the Civil Rights Act clashes with Plank 2.0 of the Libertarian Party's platform.

In addition, although the specific examples in plank 2.7 ("Labor Markets") are about unions, the general principle excusing employers from bargaining with them would also excuse employers from bargaining with blacks, or Americans with disabilities, or any other disadvantaged group the Civil Rights act protects. "We oppose government interference in bargaining"---that's the general principle.

------
(*) on checking the text of the Act, that's actually under title 7. My bad.

Edwards had already served two terms as gov before being term limited, so it's not like he was running an outsider campaign against an incumbent. Every one knew that Treen was a caretaker until Edwards could run again.