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.
Differences between Rand Paul and Ron Paul
- Thread starter eugenekop
- Start date
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.
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
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
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/2010/10/29/1897800/rand-paul-says-civil-rights-act.html#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.
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.
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
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
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.
Last edited:
jonathansloas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 79
Ron is for Earmarks, Rand is not.
Dreamofunity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,830
Yay for symbolic logic and truth-tables!
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
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.
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
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Rand-deniers are sick! Sick I tell you! ^^^
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 8,211
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.
What is an average voter?
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.
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.
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.
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.
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
Similar threads
