Libertarian Party attacking Rand again: "Why Libertarians Hate Rand Paul" - Daily Beast

[Jeremy]

The LP will always have a candidate, even if Badnarik won the GOP nomination.
The LP is a stickler for the rules, and the rules state that a candidate will be nominated, and how.

They can nominate someone already on the ballot (like one of the Pauls if they won).

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

First of all, it's very clear that Rand's public pro-Israel stance is to insulate himself from claims that he's anti-Israel or even antisemitic. His outreach to minority voters is an attempt to do the same thing with the inevitable smears of racism that are going to come down the barrel in very short order. Does anyone really believe he can get the black vote? Does anyone think he thinks he can? Of course not; politics is a game of chess, and Rand is quite a good chess player. But I digress.

Lets say Rand is a complete sellout when it comes to foreign policy, just for argument's sake. Hypothetically postulate that a Rand presidency maintains the warfare state status quo. Postulate too that he cuts spending, taxes, pushes drug war reform, results in a better fed chairman and better monetary policy, welfare reform and perhaps even a move toward a negative income tax (not a position Rand has espoused AFAIK, but he should), immigration reform or non-corporatist market deregulation. If all or even any of the above happens, a huge amount has been accomplished.

Think of the alternative: yet another Bush or Clinton presidency that not only maintains neoconservative foreign policy, but in all likelihood doubles down on it and absolutely none of the benefits listed above. Democracy is a truly shitty system, that inevitably leads to pandering to plebeians and choosing the lesser evil. I wish we didn't have to do that, but we do, and it is a petulant, counter-productive move to to just take your ball and go home if you have an imperfect candidate that plays ball on the world stage.

So many libertarians seem to have no real desire to actually change the country and lead it in a better direction. They're perfectly happy to pat themselves on the back for their "principles", take potshots at the establishment all the while crowing about how they're "above politics" and that they've "seen through left and right". Well, congratulations boyo, your principled stance has rendered you a political irrelevancy, a curiosity at best. I actually want to see a more libertarian country in my lifetime. If you're too "principled" to support the only guy who's remotely capable of doing that because he disagrees with you on a few issues, then you're part of the problem. Abandoning libertarian principles will do nothing to move the country in the right direction, but so to will sticking to those principles to the point of being a political nonentity.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

perhaps even a move toward a negative income tax (not a position Rand has espoused AFAIK, but he should)

Agreed, some kind of spending-neutral welfare reform to convert all the in-kind benefits to cash payments (be it NIT or GMI or something else) would be a huge economic boon and politically feasible - it's a perfect populist libertarian plank. It's too bad that it's fallen out of the political arena, hope Rand does revive it.

 

[torchbearer]

They can nominate someone already on the ballot (like one of the Pauls if they won).

It would have to be a delegate rebellion since i doubt Rand or Ron would show up to the LNC to ask for the nomination.

 

[torchbearer]

The delegate would have to vote for someone who isn't even on their slate or asking for their vote for nomination. it would have to be a delegate rebellion.
could happen with a bob barr vs wayne allen root show-off again. poor ruwart got screwed at that convention.

 

[jmdrake]

Regarding the letter, I think Patrick Buchanan nailed the situation pretty well.

Good read:

http://buchanan.org/blog/will-the-gop-kick-it-away-15744

excerpt:

Came then the astonishing letter drafted by Tom Cotton, a 2-month-old senator who makes Ted Cruz look like Ramsey Clark, that was signed by 47 Republicans. Sent to the ayatollah and mullahs, the Cotton letter instructed Iran that any deal signed by Kerry might not be worth the paper it was written on.

Congress could reject the deal, said the 47, and a new president in 2017 could cancel it with “the stroke of a pen.”

The letter’s purpose was the same as Bibi’s purpose — to scuttle, sabotage and sink any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. But if there is no deal and Iran returns to enriching uranium to 20 percent, we are on the road to war.

I didn't realize that Tom Cotton was a freshman senator. Talk about the tail waging the dog!

 

[TheTexan]

Really? It looks to you like Rand is abandoning all of his ideals?

Only if he wants to have a chance at winning

 

[PierzStyx]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/20/why-libertarians-hate-rand-paul.html

It amazes me how confused even Libertarians are about what the Libertarian Party is. It was named that after the libertarian philosophy. Many libertarians thought it was a bad idea to create a party with that name too. It's ridiculous for them to act like libertarians are based on the LP.

What I find confusing is how libertarians think Rand Paul is one of them. At best Rand is a paleoconservative. He may serve as an ally in some cases, but his anti-free market and international interventionist streak surely disqualifies him form being a libertarian, especially for those who support the NAP. He may not be for bombing people, though he apparently has little problem with bombing civilians here with them, but his repeated support for international treaties is still initiation of violence against foreign powers which have done nothing to us.

 

[philipped]

I actually want to see a more libertarian country in my lifetime. If you're too "principled" to support the only guy who's remotely capable of doing that because he disagrees with you on a few issues.

Then you're wishing to see the demise of the nation.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Then you're wishing to see the demise of the nation.

Exactly. Not sure why I didn't finish that sentence (gotta fix that) but you're spot-on.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Only if he wants to have a chance at winning

Why do you think he would have to sell out completely in order to win?



Obviously it's possible for candidates to win without towing the establishment line: e.g. Senator Rand Paul 2010.

...seems like you're focusing on the two extremes (purism, total sell-out) to the exclusion of the potentially very fruitful middle.

 

[CaptUSA]

The LP needs to drop the Statue of Liberty. This should be their new logo:

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I want the anti-Rand libertarians to really get introspective and ask themselves some very serious questions. Do you really want to see a more libertarian United States? If so, you have to be willing to compromise, and accept the fact that a purely libertarian candidate is simply unelectable. How are you going to feel if you stay home and Jeb Bush wins a tightly won primary? Are your "principles" going to comfort you when you're partially responsible for yet another neocon presidency? It is such a childish position to stop supporting a candidate because he isn't absolutely fucking perfect. There is no perfect candidate on the horizon (even Ron Paul didn't fit that criteria), but we do have a good candidate. I don't get the people who will reject the most electable libertarian leaning presidential hopeful there's been in at least a half century and thereby guarantee that we end up getting a complete monster instead.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Why do you think he would have to sell out completely in order to win?



Obviously it's possible for candidates to win without towing the establishment line: e.g. Senator Rand Paul 2010.

...seems like you're focusing on the two extremes (purism, total sell-out) to the exclusion of the potentially very fruitful middle.

bxm is a troll, and not a very good one. He adds nothing to any conversation and isn't worth engaging.

He does exemplify the black-and-white thinking that so many libertarians have. This is what happens when your political philosophy is devoid of any utilitarian analysis of what actually makes civilization work. You have your principles? Good for you. Hope you like living in a society where they're completely and totally meaningless. Honestly, I think a lot of libertarians actually do like that, because it allows them to adopt an affectation of having transcended the system, without actually having to put their ideas to the test.

 

[CPUd]

I remember when people outside the LP (like on here and dailypaul) were trying to get Jim Gray to step aside so Ron Paul could be on the ticket in 2012. Guessing that the LP remembers that, too.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

It seems that the LP and some of its members are so irrelevant that their only mission is to bad mouth the best senator there is because they don't like him doing things his own way and with his own reasonings rather than their own. Iconoclasm only gets you so far.