Judge Napolitano: on Rand Paul and The Future of America!

[orenbus]

Since when did books start getting trailers?

 

[LibertyExtremist]

I think it's important for libertarians that are unsure about Rand to listen the Judge's take. I know many are very uncomfortable (including myself at times) with the softening of his libertarian edges, however, the Judge has no doubt that Rand is a libertarian to his core and that all the softening is strictly to get the nomination. Some may not like that tactic, but what choice do we really have at this point if we are actually serious about a liberty president?

 

[orenbus]

Yep.

 

[tennman]

I think it's important for libertarians that are unsure about Rand to listen the Judge's take. I know many are very uncomfortable (including myself at times) with the softening of his libertarian edges, however, the Judge has no doubt that Rand is a libertarian to his core and that all the softening is strictly to get the nomination. Some may not like that tactic, but what choice do we really have at this point if we are actually serious about a liberty president?

EXACTLY! I wish I could high five you! Why some libertarians don't get this is infuriating. It's like refusing pizza because you only got 5 out of the 7 toppings you wanted when the only other food option is dog food.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

EXACTLY! I wish I could high five you! Why some libertarians don't get this is infuriating. It's like refusing pizza because you only got 5 out of the 7 toppings you wanted when the only other food option is dog food.

Are you suggesting that a Rand Paul presidency will achieve 70% of libertarians' objectives? That would mean eliminating essentially everything the government does that isn't strictly constitutional. I don't think I've seen anyone reasonably propose that a Rand Paul presidency would achieve such a thing. Literally not a single person.

Because if you aren't, libertarians are objecting because a Rand Paul presidency is more likely to give us the option between a can of wet dog food and a bag of dog biscuits, with the possibility of one of those options being tainted - then having the worst of the options summed up as libertarianism and the result of too much freedom. This has happened and is currently happening in numerous places in the world with severe fiscal and financial issues.

Those of us who typically object to a Rand Paul presidency see more value in him being a grind in the machine in the Senate, rather than being the one holding the bag for every and any problem that will arise during his governance. And he (and libertarianism, explicitly) will be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you suggesting that a Rand Paul presidency will achieve 70% of libertarians' objectives? That would mean eliminating essentially everything the government does that isn't strictly constitutional. I don't think I've seen anyone reasonably propose that a Rand Paul presidency would achieve such a thing. Literally not a single person.

Because if you aren't, libertarians are objecting because a Rand Paul presidency is more likely to give us the option between a can of wet dog food and a bag of dog biscuits, with the possibility of one of those options being tainted - then having the worst of the options summed up as libertarianism and the result of too much freedom. This has happened and is currently happening in numerous places in the world with severe fiscal and financial issues.

Those of us who typically object to a Rand Paul presidency see more value in him being a grind in the machine in the Senate, rather than being the one holding the bag for every and any problem that will arise during his governance. And he (and libertarianism, explicitly) will be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

Ron Paul would not have been able to accomplish even 50% of libertarian objectives in 8 years of the Presidency. We simply lack a Congress with conviction, or an electorate with the political will. To demand that Rand accomplish at least 70% of libertarian goals in office or be a failure is absurd.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

Are you suggesting that a Rand Paul presidency will achieve 70% of libertarians' objectives? That would mean eliminating essentially everything the government does that isn't strictly constitutional. I don't think I've seen anyone reasonably propose that a Rand Paul presidency would achieve such a thing. Literally not a single person.

Because if you aren't, libertarians are objecting because a Rand Paul presidency is more likely to give us the option between a can of wet dog food and a bag of dog biscuits, with the possibility of one of those options being tainted - then having the worst of the options summed up as libertarianism and the result of too much freedom. This has happened and is currently happening in numerous places in the world with severe fiscal and financial issues.

Those of us who typically object to a Rand Paul presidency see more value in him being a grind in the machine in the Senate, rather than being the one holding the bag for every and any problem that will arise during his governance. And he (and libertarianism, explicitly) will be blamed for anything that goes wrong.

Well, don't we have to take that risk at some point? I mean libertarianism can't stay in our parent's basement forever if we are serious about making real headway. Also, it's not as if libertarianism is just loved by the media anyway. No matter who gets in office, libertarian ideas will get blamed anyway when things go wrong, kinda the way they blame capitalism for cronyism.

I agree that the powers that be will oppose a Rand presidency at every turn and that things will be difficult. The Judge makes that point in the interview and states that we need more Rand-like people to sweep into congress in 2016 as well or Rand will be a veto president (not that that would be a bad thing). One thing a Rand presidency would certainly do is legitimize liberty candidates everywhere and it says that we are a serious and legitimate movement. Next time, instead of one liberty candidate running for the presidency, perhaps it's two or three.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul would not have been able to accomplish even 50% of libertarian objectives in 8 years of the Presidency. We simply lack a Congress with conviction, or an electorate with the political will. To demand that Rand accomplish at least 70% of libertarian goals in office or be a failure is absurd.

Right, which is why I asked what I asked. The person I quoted said that a Rand presidency would be a pizza with 5 out of 7 toppings we desired, which works out to about 70% (or more, really, when you add the pizza. But for the sake of simplicity, let's roll with 70%). However, since libertarians don't desire political victory but political change, Rand isn't said pizza with 5 out of 7 toppings.

Well, don't we have to take that risk at some point? I mean libertarianism can't stay in our parent's basement forever if we are serious about making real headway. Also, it's not as if libertarianism is just loved by the media anyway. No matter who gets in office, libertarian ideas will get blamed anyway when things go wrong, kinda the way they blame capitalism for cronyism.

I agree that the powers that be will oppose a Rand presidency at every turn and that things will be difficult. The Judge makes that point in the interview and states that we need more Rand-like people to sweep into congress in 2016 as well or Rand will be a veto president (not that that would be a bad thing). One thing a Rand presidency would certainly do is legitimize liberty candidates everywhere and it says that we are a serious and legitimate movement. Next time, instead of one liberty candidate running for the presidency, perhaps it's two or three.

The Congress has, what, 2 or 3 voices that can reliably vote on the side of liberty (95%+), and a dozen or so more who generally side with libertarians? Assuming Rand is a true sleeper agent/trojan horse libertarian, he'd need 50 or so hardcore members of the house and a dozen dyed in the wool senators to accomplish anything. To say nothing of national consensus. I don't see that sort of help coming by 2020.

The risk should be taken at some point, but that point isn't now.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

The Congress has, what, 2 or 3 voices that can reliably vote on the side of liberty (95%+), and a dozen or so more who generally side with libertarians? Assuming Rand is a true sleeper agent/trojan horse libertarian, he'd need 50 or so hardcore members of the house and a dozen dyed in the wool senators to accomplish anything. To say nothing of national consensus. I don't see that sort of help coming by 2020.

The risk should be taken at some point, but that point isn't now.

I agree with you that we certainly need more liberty candidates in congress. That said, it would be suicide for the GOP to oppose a Rand presidency at every stop and would rip the party completely apart. Ultimately, the GOP will have to follow Rand's lead to a certain extent.

 

[orenbus]

The Congress has, what, 2 or 3 voices that can reliably vote on the side of liberty (95%+), and a dozen or so more who generally side with libertarians? Assuming Rand is a true sleeper agent/trojan horse libertarian, he'd need 50 or so hardcore members of the house and a dozen dyed in the wool senators to accomplish anything. To say nothing of national consensus. I don't see that sort of help coming by 2020.

The risk should be taken at some point, but that point isn't now.

The way I see it is along the lines of what Ron Paul was saying when they asked him how effective he would be as President, and he conceded the point that you can't do anything unless the American people begin to question the role of government. For that you need a podium to speak from that will cut through the noise of the media to some extent, and have an ability to speak directly to Americans. I can't think of a microphone that is any louder than that of the "leader of the free world".

 

[65fastback2+2]

I think it's important for libertarians that are unsure about Rand to listen the Judge's take. I know many are very uncomfortable (including myself at times) with the softening of his libertarian edges, however, the Judge has no doubt that Rand is a libertarian to his core and that all the softening is strictly to get the nomination. Some may not like that tactic, but what choice do we really have at this point if we are actually serious about a liberty president?

can i somehow rep you 100 times?

libertarians keep flipping out over this and its driving me nuts. I had to argue with one on thomas massie's page the other day that was rambling on how he wont be voting for rand bc of his "softening". i mean, get real here people, your only other options are SOFTER. so you're not going to vote for the 9/10 because he's not a 10/10 in your mind and then tell us you'll vote for a 7/10?! its like some people literally try to be stupid.

 

[65fastback2+2]

Ron Paul would not have been able to accomplish even 50% of libertarian objectives in 8 years of the Presidency. We simply lack a Congress with conviction, or an electorate with the political will. To demand that Rand accomplish at least 70% of libertarian goals in office or be a failure is absurd.

i dont agree with "demands" but I dont put it outside of the realm of possibility.

the goal is to get liberty a national face. The MAJORITY of people do actually want liberty...they just dont trust the government to protect it.

Id be Rand as President would drastically change the faces in congress very quickly.

 

[nayjevin]

The way I see it is along the lines of what Ron Paul was saying when they asked him how effective he would be as President, and he conceded the point that you can't do anything unless the American people begin to question the role of government. For that you need a podium to speak from that will cut through the noise of the media to some extent, and have an ability to speak directly to the Americans. I can't think of a microphone that is any louder than that of the "leader of the free world".

No kidding. Each time Rand is on TV saying something convincing and true about liberty it's like thousands of dollars of advertising - and most if not all of it wouldn't have happened if Ron hadn't been a candidate. Imagine actually winning the race instead of just running with some success. Saying a libertarian president would be ineffective is absurd.

 

[nayjevin]

i dont agree with "demands" but I dont put it outside of the realm of possibility.

the goal is to get liberty a national face. The MAJORITY of people do actually want liberty...they just dont trust the government to protect it.

Id be Rand as President would drastically change the faces in congress very quickly.

Yes, it's license to lean toward liberty for many. Stand with Rand the president and you're standing with a voting majority.