# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Differences between Rand Paul and Ron Paul

## eugenekop

Hi guys, can you sum up the differences between these two and where they stand on the issues?

----------


## Jordan

The difference is about 28 years.

----------


## gls

I'm sure there are differences on some relatively minor issues but it seems to me that overall their core beliefs align. It is just that Ron tends to take a philosophical approach while Rand is much more willing to play the game of politics.

----------


## dannno

Hair color

----------


## ctiger2

Eye Dr. VS OB/GYN

----------


## sailingaway

We won't completely know until Rand's votes start coming in.  Part of it is style and emphasis -- Ron is teaching a philosophy on all issues, Rand particularly wants to get specific things done on the budget and on lobbying reforms etc.  The ones most discussed here were things like Ron wanting civilian trials in the US and to close GITMO while Rand wanted military tribunals and to keep it open at least until we found somewhere else for everyone to go -- but even that might have something to do with the fact that the actual QUESTION was different at the time it was asked.  Now that 'indefinite preventative detention' is administration policy, military tribunals are better than none, and perpetual imprisonment without trial is being contemplated for some.  That wasn't the discussion at all when Ron stated his position.

Rand is considered a bit more 'conservative' and Ron a bit more 'libertarian', but beyond style, the proof will be in the votes.  

Rand HAS stuck by his OWN principles even to audiences that were opposed to them, however, and even at risk of losing the election, and while they may not have precisely the same principles, we are hopeful (and some are certain) he has his Dad's integrity, which goes a long, long way.

This from Rand's website:




> I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
> I will not vote for an unbalanced budget.  I will not vote for a tax increase.   Ever.
> I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
> I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice.   That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
> We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut.  Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
> I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
> I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment.  Republicans the 2nd.   I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
> I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
> What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country.  While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom.  You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others.  And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.

----------


## eugenekop

Are you sure you want him to have the father's integrity? You won't get far in American politics if you are honest about your libertarian ideology.

----------


## sailingaway

> Are you sure you want him to have the father's integrity? You won't get far in American politics if you are honest about your libertarian ideology.


LOL!

I meant the part about not selling out the people, and that integrity I absolutely want.  It IS a fact that Rand isn't as frank and 'declarative' about his positions as his father is, so we are to some extent trusting him as someone we've collectively known for a long time, and as Ron's son.

----------


## BamaFanNKy

> Are you sure you want him to have the father's integrity? You won't get far in American politics if you are honest about your libertarian ideology.

----------


## sailingaway

> 


Could be.  But I don't really mind people asking his positions. I'd rather they came here than went to ThinkProgress's daily lies about him...

----------


## Cherder

Handling of Gitmo detainees is about the only significant difference I recall.

----------


## MaxPower

Ron is openly and vocally opposed to the federal drug war in its entirety, while Rand has a much more toned-down position to the effect that he would "prefer" that more of the funding for anti-drug efforts be local, and has said that he does not advocate repealing all federal drug prohibitions.
Ron openly states that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the titles which violate the private property rights of citizens; Rand made the same point (infringement of private property rights) in a much more cautious way while remaining ambiguous about how he would have actually voted, then (under the pressure of a media firestorm) eventually stated he would have voted "yes."
Ron writes earmarks into spending bills as a means of ensuring that, should the appropriation pass (though he always votes against it) his constituency will receive some of the funding back, while Rand says that he will never write an earmark, even in the way his father does it, because of the "symbolism."
Ron is a hard-line anti-war and anti-imperialist voice in Congress and has backed it up with his votes, while Rand, though also a relative non-interventionist who has stated that war should be defensive, declared and a last resort, takes a softer stance- he indicated in at least one interview I saw that he would be open to voting in favor of some continued funding for the Afghan war, for example.
Ron has for years been an advocate of immediately shutting down Guantanamo Bay and giving constitutional trials to the detainees, while Rand says that it shouldn't be close until there is a good plan regarding what to do with said detainees and that they should be tried in military tribunals (noting that, after-all, military tribunals are used for, say, US soldiers accused of crimes).
Ron advocates a repeal of Roe vs. Wade in order to make abortion an issue to be determined at the state level (where he would like to see it criminalized), while Rand has said he will support efforts to federally criminalize abortion.
Ron opposes the death penalty (one of the few issues on which he has significantly changed his position over the years), while Rand supports it.
Ron openly states that he wants to phase out programs like Social Security and Medicare, while Rand advocates raising the age of eligibility, eventually raising deductibles, and/or using means testing to make these programs financially sustainable.

In general, you can expect Rand to have a marginally less libertarian position on most issues than his father does. Having seen some of Rand's writings and speeches from the days before he launched his political career, I am fairly certain that his beliefs are privately substantially closer to his father's than the public stances he has taken during and since his campaign would indicate, and that he has publicly "toned down" many of the more hardcore libertarian aspects of his philosophy in order to remain politically viable.

All of that said, Ron and Rand are still exceptionally close together on most of the actual pressing issues of the day; things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whether or not to completely end the drug war, whether or not to gradually abolish Social Security and Medicare, etc. are essentially non-issues in terms of actually being on the table for political enactment, and so these differences between the Pauls are, within the context of the current US legislature, only rhetorical. *Regarding, say, bailouts, "Stimulus" packages, regulation overhauls, tax increases, health care, the PATRIOT Act, the launching of undeclared preemptive war, the need to balance the budget, the need for a Federal Reserve audit, etc., they are, by the looks of things, identical.*

----------


## eugenekop

Wow, thanks for the information. I think Rand is doing the right thing, because Libertarians need him, and he won't have enough political power if he honestly stated all of his opinions. However it does seem that Rand is genuinely more socially conservative than his father, and I personally don't really like social conservatism.

But I think politically it doesn't really matter how Libertarian he is, the congress is full of big government people, and all kinds of small government advocates should be welcomed.

----------


## Brett85

"Ron openly states that he wants to phase out programs like Social Security and Medicare, while Rand advocates raising the age of eligibility, eventually raising deductibles, and/or using means testing to make these programs financially sustainable."

I don't believe that Ron has ever called for Medicare to be phased out.  Lawrence O'Donnell flat out asked him in an interview whether he would get rid of Medicare, and Ron said no.  Ron and Rand have both basically said that SS and Medicare never should've been created in the first place, but it's unrealistic to abolish them now that they're here.

----------


## sailingaway

> "Ron openly states that he wants to phase out programs like Social Security and Medicare, while Rand advocates raising the age of eligibility, eventually raising deductibles, and/or using means testing to make these programs financially sustainable."
> 
> I don't believe that Ron has ever called for Medicare to be phased out.  Lawrence O'Donnell flat out asked him in an interview whether he would get rid of Medicare, and Ron said no.  Ron and Rand have both basically said that SS and Medicare never should've been created in the first place, but it's unrealistic to abolish them now that they're here.


Right.  They both said they shouldn't have been pilfered but once people were forced to pay in all their lives they now need to be looked at for reform so they can actually work.  Ron HAS said he'd like to fund the older folks with money from overseas and let the young ones opt out if they want, though.

----------


## TheHumblePhysicist

Rand Paul is more of a "cloak and dagger" libertarian hiding in the conservative movement, while Ron is outspoken and in your face. 

Which is more noble? Well, you could say Ron, because he expresses his true beliefs, however Ron has gotten nothing done in 30 years. You could say Rand because he is actually changing the political scene, however he might be more willing to compromise, so I don't really know.

----------


## MaxPower

> "Ron openly states that he wants to phase out programs like Social Security and Medicare, while Rand advocates raising the age of eligibility, eventually raising deductibles, and/or using means testing to make these programs financially sustainable."
> 
> I don't believe that Ron has ever called for Medicare to be phased out.  Lawrence O'Donnell flat out asked him in an interview whether he would get rid of Medicare, and Ron said no.  Ron and Rand have both basically said that SS and Medicare never should've been created in the first place, but it's unrealistic to abolish them now that they're here.


In December of 2000, Ron signed onto a statement calling for the eventual abolition of _all_ federal welfare.

In January 2008 at the debate in Boca Raton, Ron was asked, "Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?" and responded, "Yes, but not overnight."

Likewise, in "The Revolution: A Manifesto," he wrote:
_"The most obvious way to break this cycle is to get the government out of the business of meddling in health care, which was far more affordable and accessible before government got involved. Short of that, and more politically feasible in the immediate run, is to allow consumers and their doctors to pull themselves out of the system through medical savings accounts."_

In the interview with O'Donnell, Ron said he didn't want to abolish Medicare _now_ or in the _immediate future._ O'Donnell wanted to reduce his position to a soundbite ("Ron Paul wants to abolish Medicare!!!" ) so that it would sound scarier to Medicare recipients than it really is. Ron refused to give O'Donnell said misleading soundbite, instead offering a more nuanced discussion of his position. Ron most certainly has, however, made it clear that he wants to see Medicare, like _all_ federal welfare programs, eventually abolished. Rand, on the other hand, talks only about preserving Medicare and Social Security for future generations, and said during a debate with Conway last month that he "did not challenge" the constitutionality of Social Security; Rand's official position is thus clearly different from his father's. Now, again, they are very similar in the short-run (both would support policies like increasing the retirement age), and I do believe that Rand is almost certainly privately in agreement with his dad's desire to eventually abolish these programs, but in terms of policies publicly advocated within their respective political careers, this _is_ a difference between the two.

----------


## sailingaway

> Rand Paul is more of a "cloak and dagger" libertarian hiding in the conservative movement, while Ron is outspoken and in your face. 
> 
> Which is more noble? Well, you could say Ron, because he expresses his true beliefs, however Ron has gotten nothing done in 30 years. You could say Rand because he is actually changing the political scene, however he might be more willing to compromise, so I don't really know.


Ron got a LOT done, for one thing he raised people's awareness of the issues to where it was possible for Rand to get elected, apart from passing HR1207 and making THAT a huge issue with people.

We don't need to compare them to eachother to support both of them.

----------


## sailingaway

> I do believe that Rand is almost certainly privately in agreement with his dad's desire to eventually abolish these programs, but in terms of policies publicly advocated within their respective political careers, this _is_ a difference between the two.


I think Rand is fighting battles he thinks he has a chance to win, at least for now.  Ron is fighting with ideas to make the world more receptive to future change.

----------


## low preference guy

> I think Rand is fighting battles he thinks he has a chance to win, at least for now.  Ron is fighting with ideas to make the world more receptive to future change.


exactly

----------


## Brett85

> and I do believe that Rand is almost certainly privately in agreement with his dad's desire to eventually abolish these programs, but in terms of policies publicly advocated within their respective political careers, this _is_ a difference between the two.


Exactly.  Rand simply didn't want to come right out and say in a debate that SS is unconstitutional and should be abolished.  That would have done nothing for him, and it could have cost him the election.  I'm pretty certain that he privately supports abolishing those programs along with all other welfare programs.  But what difference does it really make when he's never going to vote on abolishing SS and Medicare?  Rand simply doesn't want to make bold statements on issues that are settled and that he won't be voting on.

----------


## MaxPower

> I think Rand is fighting battles he thinks he has a chance to win, at least for now.  Ron is fighting with ideas to make the world more receptive to future change.


I agree (although I do believe that Rand has, on occasion, crossed the line into objectionable dishonesty), but the point is that this (both the broader strategy and the specific policy positions it spawns) _is_ a "Difference between Rand Paul and Ron Paul," of the sort the opening post requests.

----------


## low preference guy

> I agree (although I do believe that Rand has, on occasion, crossed the line into objectionable dishonesty).


what's an example of Rand's objectionable dishonesty or non-objectionable dishonesty?

----------


## MaxPower

> what's an example of Rand's objectionable dishonesty or non-objectionable dishonesty?


Well, there is, as I see it, a "gray area," so to speak, regarding candidness in representing one's opinions, and then there is the point of unmitigated dishonesty, which I deem "objectionable." I have what many would consider extremely high standards regarding honesty, mind you- this is one of the things which drew me to Ron Paul.

Now, with regards to Rand, I would say, first, that many of his public statements fall into what I consider the aforementioned "gray area," which I would define as the space in which one is not outright lying, but is deliberately phrasing true statements in ways likely to be interpreted in a fashion somewhat divergent from the reality of things. For example, the article Rand released about Israel a while back utilized rhetoric of a neocon-esque variety, talking about America's "special" relationship with Israel and what-have-you, and I expect most people who read said article got the impression that Rand would support the standard Republican policies regarding Israel (billions of dollars in foreign aid, unconditional support, willingness to charge to war for their cause, etc.). Now, if you read closely, the only actual policies Rand mentions are free trade with Israel and not funding or arming Israel's enemies, both of which are good libertarian positions in line with his father's, while he remains silent on the issue of giving foreign aid or arms to Israel itself or going to war for them; thus, he does not offer up any actual lies or neoconservative positions. However, I expect that most typical American voters who read that article would be very surprised thereafter to find out that Rand actually _opposes_ foreign aid to Israel, arming Israel or unconditionally fighting for them, all of which, are, I am quite certain, his actual positions. This type of behavior I do not altogether condemn, though it does make me uncomfortable.

To go a step further, howeve there are also at least a couple instances in which Rand appears to me to have outright lied, which I cannot condone. Take, say, the Civil Rights Act controversy- early in his campaign, when asked about this issue, Rand stated, in effect, that the act is overwhelmingly well-intentioned and has a great deal of good, but does contain some objectionable content, and coming across as ambivalent as to whether or not he would have voted for the overall bill. I believe this is clearly Rand Paul's real position, as indicated, for example, by the letter-to-the-editor he wrote to his local paper a few years back about the Fair Housing Act, and even some of his college writings; his view that discrimination within the scope of one's own private property rights, while immoral, must be tolerated on principle, is pretty well-established. However, under pressure after the media uproar that followed his Rachel Maddow interview, Rand came out and said unambiguously for the first time that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, and late last month, he issued a statement through his campaign manager that was as follows: "Yes, I believe that the1964 Civil Rights Act properly provides that no business should be able to discriminate. I have said repeatedly that I abhor discrimination, that it was a stain upon our nation, and that the situation required the remedy of legislation to end the problem."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/2...#ixzz16BbuLY5w 

I suppose it is possible Rand personally underwent a major philosophical shift over the last few months that saw him change this position, which follows logically from his principles and to which he has seemingly adhered for many years, but I doubt it. It looks more likely to me that Rand simply lied in order to avoid a resurgence of the political fall-out that accompanied discussion of his real position. Now, I can certainly sympathize with the bind he was in, but I will not condone outright falsehoods. Don't get me wrong; Rand is still head-and-shoulders above the vast majority of all politicians in terms of integrity. I still support him, and will continue to do so provided that he compiles a voting record befitting a son of Ron Paul. However, like more or less all politicians aside from his father ("Behold, a politician in whom there is no deceit!"), he has exhibited a willingness to compromise his integrity that I will not endorse.

----------


## eugenekop

Being in favor of the Civil Rights Act is completely against Libertarian principles. To have the government intervene in saying who should private businesses hire and who not, is authoritarian, anti democratic, and anti liberal stance. 

However I am not disappointed by Rand's decision to support this act if that was only done to gain political power, I will be unpleasantly surprised though if he genuinely supported it.

Now, I don't think we have to privilege to be picky. There are barely any libertarians to choose from, so anyone with even partially libertarian ideology should be welcomed.

----------


## low preference guy

> I suppose it is possible Rand personally underwent a major philosophical shift over the last few months that saw him change this position, which follows logically from his principles and to which he has seemingly adhered for many years, but I doubt it. It looks more likely to me that Rand simply lied in order to avoid a resurgence of the political fall-out that accompanied discussion of his real position. Now, I can certainly sympathize with the bind he was in, but I will not condone outright falsehoods. Don't get me wrong; Rand is still head-and-shoulders above the vast majority of all politicians in terms of integrity. I still support him, and will continue to do so provided that he compiles a voting record befitting a son of Ron Paul. However, like more or less all politicians aside from his father ("Behold, a politician in whom there is no deceit!"), he has exhibited a willingness to compromise his integrity that I will not endorse.


That's not a falsehood at all. A false statement implies everything. In essence, if P is false, P implies Q is true for any  proposition Q. That's basic logic.

Since Rand wasn't a Senator when that law was voted, that's a false statement. Thus, it properly implies everything, and in a technical sense, Rand didn't lie.

----------


## jonathansloas

Ron is for Earmarks, Rand is not.

----------


## johnrocks

Hopefully ;besides age and type Physician.....nothing.

----------


## Dreamofunity

> That's not a falsehood at all. A false statement implies everything. In essence, if P is false, P implies Q is true for any  proposition Q. That's basic logic.
> 
> Since Rand wasn't a Senator when that law was voted, that's a false statement. Thus, it properly implies everything, and in a technical sense, Rand didn't lie.


Yay for symbolic logic and truth-tables!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, there is, as I see it, a "gray area," so to speak, regarding candidness in representing one's opinions, and then there is the point of unmitigated dishonesty, which I deem "objectionable." I have what many would consider extremely high standards regarding honesty, mind you- this is one of the things which drew me to Ron Paul.
> 
> Now, with regards to Rand, I would say, first, that many of his public statements fall into what I consider the aforementioned "gray area," which I would define as the space in which one is not outright lying, but is deliberately phrasing true statements in ways likely to be interpreted in a fashion somewhat divergent from the reality of things. For example, the article Rand released about Israel a while back utilized rhetoric of a neocon-esque variety, talking about America's "special" relationship with Israel and what-have-you, and I expect most people who read said article got the impression that Rand would support the standard Republican policies regarding Israel (billions of dollars in foreign aid, unconditional support, willingness to charge to war for their cause, etc.). Now, if you read closely, the only actual policies Rand mentions are free trade with Israel and not funding or arming Israel's enemies, both of which are good libertarian positions in line with his father's, while he remains silent on the issue of giving foreign aid or arms to Israel itself or going to war for them; thus, he does not offer up any actual lies or neoconservative positions. However, I expect that most typical American voters who read that article would be very surprised thereafter to find out that Rand actually _opposes_ foreign aid to Israel, arming Israel or unconditionally fighting for them, all of which, are, I am quite certain, his actual positions. This type of behavior I do not altogether condemn, though it does make me uncomfortable.
> 
> To go a step further, howeve there are also at least a couple instances in which Rand appears to me to have outright lied, which I cannot condone. Take, say, the Civil Rights Act controversy- early in his campaign, when asked about this issue, Rand stated, in effect, that the act is overwhelmingly well-intentioned and has a great deal of good, but does contain some objectionable content, and coming across as ambivalent as to whether or not he would have voted for the overall bill. I believe this is clearly Rand Paul's real position, as indicated, for example, by the letter-to-the-editor he wrote to his local paper a few years back about the Fair Housing Act, and even some of his college writings; his view that discrimination within the scope of one's own private property rights, while immoral, must be tolerated on principle, is pretty well-established. However, under pressure after the media uproar that followed his Rachel Maddow interview, Rand came out and said unambiguously for the first time that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, and late last month, he issued a statement through his campaign manager that was as follows: "Yes, I believe that the1964 Civil Rights Act properly provides that no business should be able to discriminate. I have said repeatedly that I abhor discrimination, that it was a stain upon our nation, and that the situation required the remedy of legislation to end the problem."
> http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/2...#ixzz16BbuLY5w 
> 
> I suppose it is possible Rand personally underwent a major philosophical shift over the last few months that saw him change this position, which follows logically from his principles and to which he has seemingly adhered for many years, but I doubt it. It looks more likely to me that Rand simply lied in order to avoid a resurgence of the political fall-out that accompanied discussion of his real position. Now, I can certainly sympathize with the bind he was in, but I will not condone outright falsehoods. Don't get me wrong; Rand is still head-and-shoulders above the vast majority of all politicians in terms of integrity. I still support him, and will continue to do so provided that he compiles a voting record befitting a son of Ron Paul. However, like more or less all politicians aside from his father ("Behold, a politician in whom there is no deceit!"), he has exhibited a willingness to compromise his integrity that I will not endorse.




Uh...sure!  Rand should have not "compromised his integrity".  He should have even made the Fair Housing Act and the ADA and the Civil Rights Act centerpieces of his campaign, right?  Onward Libertarian soldiers!


Come on dude.  We live in a nation of sheep that have been groomed for Statism.  Thank God Rand wasn't "libertarian-pure", because that would mean we would have real authoritarian socialist in the Senate named Jack Conway.

You *Rand-deniers* (I just coined that term!) need to learn that WINNING IS IMPORTANT TOO.  It is a hell of a lot easier to shape the debate if you actually WIN something.

----------


## Natalie

//

----------


## MaxPower

> That's not a falsehood at all. A false statement implies everything. In essence, if P is false, P implies Q is true for any  proposition Q. That's basic logic.
> 
> Since Rand wasn't a Senator when that law was voted, that's a false statement. Thus, it properly implies everything, and in a technical sense, Rand didn't lie.


Um... let us go over this again:
Rand was asked by the newspaper what his position on discrimination was. His first response was that "neither government nor businesses nor individuals should discriminate," to which they responded by asking whether he believed in legal prohibition against business discrimination. He responded with, "Yes, I believe that the Civil Rights Act properly provides that no business shall be able to discriminate." Now, barring some very clever word play, this is, particularly in context, a _clear statement of support of the public accommodations title_ of the Civil Rights Act. Since this has not historically been Rand Paul's position, it is pretty clear-cut that he has either just within the last few months undergone a great personal philosophical shift which undid basic libertarian beliefs he had adhered to for many years (unlikely, in my estimation), or he simply lied about his position in order to avoid further political fall-out (which appears to be the case). Your logical-formula argument does not even appear to be addressing the issue I have just discussed, as you are evidently talking about the "I would have voted 'yes" statement, which was not the one I referred to as a lie, but rather the statement of support for the public accommodations title.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Um... let us go over this again:
> Rand was asked by the newspaper what his position on discrimination was. His first response was that "neither government nor businesses nor individuals should discriminate," to which they responded by asking whether he believed in legal prohibition against business discrimination. He responded with, "Yes, I believe that the Civil Rights Act properly provides that no business shall be able to discriminate." Now, barring some very clever word play, this is, particularly in context, a _clear statement of support of the public accommodations title_ of the Civil Rights Act. Since this has not historically been Rand Paul's position, it is pretty clear-cut that he has either just within the last few months undergone a great personal philosophical shift which undid basic libertarian beliefs he had adhered to for many years (unlikely, in my estimation), or he simply lied about his position in order to avoid further political fall-out (which appears to be the case). Your logical-formula argument does not even appear to be addressing the issue I have just discussed, as you are evidently talking about the "I would have voted 'yes" statement, which was not the one I referred to as a lie, but rather the statement of support for the public accommodations title.


Rand-deniers are sick! Sick I tell you!  ^^^

----------


## MaxPower

> Uh...sure!  Rand should have not "compromised his integrity".  He should have even made the Fair Housing Act and the ADA and the Civil Rights Act centerpieces of his campaign, right?  Onward Libertarian soldiers!
> 
> Come on dude.  We live in a nation of sheep that have been groomed for Statism.  Thank God Rand wasn't "libertarian-pure", because that would mean we would have real authoritarian socialist in the Senate named Jack Conway.
> 
> You *Rand-deniers* (I just coined that term!) need to learn that WINNING IS IMPORTANT TOO.  It is a hell of a lot easier to shape the debate if you actually WIN something.


I DID NOT say that Rand needed to make such things "centerpieces of his campaign," or anything mildly to that effect; rather, I said he should not, in my view, have deliberately made false statements- as in _lies-_ about them. This is not even related in particular to libertarianism per se, but rather to general _morality_. It is not about "libertarian purity," but _simple honesty._  I have no problem with one, say, emphasizing whatever truths are most relevant and convenient in running a campaign, or likewise with avoiding discussion of those truths which are less fortuitous, but if he believes a certain thing to be the truth, I will not support him in actively stating that another, contradictory thing is true, and thus actively denying that he believes the first.

For instance, in the event that I were to run for office myself, I might emphasize the fact that I am a fiscal conservative who opposes bailouts, stimulus packages, federal health care take-overs, etc., since these beliefs are popular (and just as Rand has done). Now, I also believe, for example, that ideally, the vast majority of all current federal functions should be outright abolished, but since this belief is obviously very unpopular, would result in my being seen as a kooky extremist, and would not actually be a part of my agenda within my term in office anyway, I might choose not to publicly discuss it, and I do not think this would be dishonest or immoral; indeed, I would be making no false statements, and would, in fact, be telling the populace those parts of the truth which are most immediately relevant and significant to them.

 I could thus, for example, campaign on the statement that I "support raising the retirement age" for Social Security, and not mention that I believe it should eventually be abolished, particularly since I will not be making any efforts to abolish it during my term in office, nor will I be voting on such an issue, and since I do think it should only be _ultimately_ abolished years after the term for which I am running has expired anyway; in campaigning this way, I make no false statements of any kind and accurately represent my intentions for action upon taking office to the voters. 

Likewise, regarding, say, the public accommodations title of the Civil Rights Act, I would certainly not bring it up, would avoid discussing it in public, and would do my best to sidestep the specifics of the issue were it raised to me (eg., "I have no intention of repealing the Civil Rights Act. Let us discuss actual issues of contemporary import"- a true statement, and the most relevant one for the voters regarding my actual office-holding aspirations) but I would not deliver a lie such as "Yes, I do believe the public accommodations title of the Civil Rights Act is justified and valid." In this matter, I think Rand was a little too unguarded at first, both in giving interviews to any and all liberally-biased media outlets that wanted to talk to him and in his willingness openly and freely discuss his opinion of said title. This put him in deep political trouble, and when the issue reared its head again (the newspaper statement I referenced earlier), Rand caved in and resorted to falsehood. There are perhaps one or two other instances I can point to in which he has acted similarly.

_"And never suppose, that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises; being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual.

Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. This increases the difficulties ten fold; and those who pursue these methods, get themselves so involved at length, that they can turn no way but their infamy becomes more exposed. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth.

There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions."_
-Thomas Jefferson

*"For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?"*
-Jesus Christ; later cited by Rand Paul

Now, again, Rand is by no means unique in his resort to dishonesty as a means of winning his campaign, and he has, in fact, been far more honest and upright than the average politician, as I see it; certainly Rand's campaign looked like a model of integrity when contrasted with the disgusting, incorrigible lying of both of his campaign opponents. I say only that I consider some of his actions objectionable, and in saying that, I do realize that I apply a much higher standard of integrity than most. You say that I am a "Rand-denier;" is it thus your standard that those who support a given figure must refrain from any and all criticism whatsoever, lest they be disowned?

I supported Rand in both the primary and general elections, defended him both in person and on the internet, and rejoiced on each of his election nights. Were I a Kentucky resident, I would have voted for him. He _has_ behaved in ways which trouble me, not only on principle, but also because he has taken the first steps down some rather frightening slippery slopes in his willingness to lie, to change positions, to be coy, and to cozy up to certain objectionable figures (as, say, when he said he thought Sarah Palin could be a "great president"), yet I am still inclined to trust him to do the right thing at the crucial junctures, and still believe that he will, in all likelihood, be the best US Senator since Barry Goldwater, if not even better.

 We cannot expect others to fit our own ideals to the point of absolute perfection, or else cooperation becomes a virtual impossibility- Ron Paul is the only national-level politician with whom I am familiar who truly does meet my standards, both in terms of positions and conduct, and I realize that if I am to wait for another Ron Paul in order to support any new figure, I will probably have to wait a lifetime. I have misgivings about Rand Paul, but I am a supporter, and I believe he will make me proud.

----------


## libertybrewcity

I'm sure they are pretty much the same except for some differences on foreign policy, earmarks, and probably a social issue or two. I am curious to see how Rand votes on raising the debt ceiling when it comes up for vote.

----------


## DaninPA

> ....When Ron talks, he sounds good to us, but to the average voter he sounds like a rambling madman.....


So true, and it makes me feel rather hopeless sometimes.

----------


## K Elaine

The USA is supposed to be exceptional, not full of average people.

To write that Rand is "slippery" is a little passive aggressive, don't you think? For a candidate that campaigned on the integrity of his word, that ought to be quite the insult.

"Comparisons" of Ron and Rand might make for interesting talkshows because many in media would like to put conservatives in a box; "if you do not do XYZ, you are a fake." During the election Rand was good at pointing out the real arguments to be made.

----------


## Justinjj1

Ron is a principled libertarian who takes firm stands on the issues and never backs down from them.  When he speaks, he gives you "Texas Straight Talk."  

Rand, well, uh, well.....he's a politician.  I won't say anymore, because legitimate criticism of Rand will get you banned on here pretty quick.  That's probably why everyone else is sugar-coating their remarks.

----------


## Fozz

> Ron is a principled libertarian who takes firm stands on the issues and never backs down from them.  When he speaks, he gives you "Texas Straight Talk."  
> 
> Rand, well, uh, well.....he's a politician.  I won't say anymore, because legitimate criticism of Rand will get you banned on here pretty quick.  That's probably why everyone else is sugar-coating their remarks.


I genuinely like Rand Paul. Do you still think he is a neocon?

----------


## low preference guy

> Ron is a principled libertarian who takes firm stands on the issues and never backs down from them.  When he speaks, he gives you "Texas Straight Talk."  
> 
> Rand, well, uh, well.....he's a politician.  I won't say anymore, because legitimate criticism of Rand will get you banned on here pretty quick.  That's probably why everyone else is sugar-coating their remarks.





From David $#@!ing Frum:




> Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination. *Rand Paul, the newly elected Tea Party-backed senator from Kentucky, bluntly told the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, that they were going to disagree about the need for foreign aid and suggested that they move on to other topics, according to a person briefed on the meeting.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I DID NOT say that Rand needed to make such things "centerpieces of his campaign," or anything mildly to that effect; rather, I said he should not, in my view, have deliberately made false statements- as in _lies-_ about them. This is not even related in particular to libertarianism per se, but rather to general _morality_. It is not about "libertarian purity," but _simple honesty._  I have no problem with one, say, emphasizing whatever truths are most relevant and convenient in running a campaign, or likewise with avoiding discussion of those truths which are less fortuitous, but if he believes a certain thing to be the truth, I will not support him in actively stating that another, contradictory thing is true, and thus actively denying that he believes the first.
> 
> For instance, in the event that I were to run for office myself, I might emphasize the fact that I am a fiscal conservative who opposes bailouts, stimulus packages, federal health care take-overs, etc., since these beliefs are popular (and just as Rand has done). Now, I also believe, for example, that ideally, the vast majority of all current federal functions should be outright abolished, but since this belief is obviously very unpopular, would result in my being seen as a kooky extremist, and would not actually be a part of my agenda within my term in office anyway, I might choose not to publicly discuss it, and I do not think this would be dishonest or immoral; indeed, I would be making no false statements, and would, in fact, be telling the populace those parts of the truth which are most immediately relevant and significant to them.
> 
>  I could thus, for example, campaign on the statement that I "support raising the retirement age" for Social Security, and not mention that I believe it should eventually be abolished, particularly since I will not be making any efforts to abolish it during my term in office, nor will I be voting on such an issue, and since I do think it should only be _ultimately_ abolished years after the term for which I am running has expired anyway; in campaigning this way, I make no false statements of any kind and accurately represent my intentions for action upon taking office to the voters. 
> 
> Likewise, regarding, say, the public accommodations title of the Civil Rights Act, I would certainly not bring it up, would avoid discussing it in public, and would do my best to sidestep the specifics of the issue were it raised to me (eg., "I have no intention of repealing the Civil Rights Act. Let us discuss actual issues of contemporary import"- a true statement, and the most relevant one for the voters regarding my actual office-holding aspirations) but I would not deliver a lie such as "Yes, I do believe the public accommodations title of the Civil Rights Act is justified and valid." In this matter, I think Rand was a little too unguarded at first, both in giving interviews to any and all liberally-biased media outlets that wanted to talk to him and in his willingness openly and freely discuss his opinion of said title. This put him in deep political trouble, and when the issue reared its head again (the newspaper statement I referenced earlier), Rand caved in and resorted to falsehood. There are perhaps one or two other instances I can point to in which he has acted similarly.
> 
> _"And never suppose, that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises; being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual.
> ...



If you think Rand is a lying, morally corrupt politician who sold his libertarian soul just to get elected, why do you think he would "make you proud"?    Why would you "support" an evil, lying snake like you described Rand as in your post?  Seems inconsistent...



Secondly, I live in Kentucky...lived here all of my life.  If you think Kentucky is this awesome repository of libertarian thought (or even conservative thought), you are crazy.  This is the land of the dixiecrats...ask anyone who lives here, they will tell you.


I don't fault Rand for positioning himself to win his race for Senate.  Libertarians are sometimes the thickest-skulled guys and girls out there...its almost like they are afraid of success sometimes--and they criticize EVERYTHING in the event that they have some success.



RELAX BRO!  WE WON!  WE DID GOOD BY ELECTING RAND!

----------


## WorldonaString

Max, you sum it all up pretty nicely right here:  

"I supported Rand in both the primary and general elections, defended him both in person and on the internet, and rejoiced on each of his election nights. Were I a Kentucky resident, I would have voted for him. He has behaved in ways which trouble me, not only on principle, but also because he has taken the first steps down some rather frightening slippery slopes in his willingness to lie, to change positions, to be coy, and to cozy up to certain objectionable figures (as, say, when he said he thought Sarah Palin could be a "great president"), yet I am still inclined to trust him to do the right thing at the crucial junctures, and still believe that he will, in all likelihood, be the best US Senator since Barry Goldwater, if not even better."


And AquaBuddha, I also see your point when you say:





> RELAX BRO!  WE WON!  WE DID GOOD BY ELECTING RAND!

----------

