Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Libertarian Party and Constitution Party would've nominated Ron if it had looked like he was going to win the GOP primary. That's what this article is all about, the fact that many in the Libertarian Party recognize that nominating a candidate other than Rand would take away hundreds of thousands of votes from Rand and possibly cause him to lose the race. Many of them acknowledge that Rand would likely be the most libertarian President that we've ever had. (I you recall, in 2008 Chuck Baldwin said that he would drop out of the race and endorse Ron if Ron actually won the GOP nomination)

Most libertarian since Coolidge or maybe even Grover Cleveland. Plus, as an added bonus he's well-read in the Austrian tradition of economics.

 

[Brett85]

The two parties would have to coordinate on approving the same electors for each party line (just as the Conservative Party in New York has to coordinate with the Republicans).
Read here

Or actually the three parties would have to coordinate with each other, if the Constitution Party also nominated Rand.

 

[specsaregood]

It would do more good than that. It would guarantee Rand would be in the general election debates.

No it wouldn't. The Commission on Presidential Debates was started by and controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties. If Randal failed to get the GOP nomination they wouldn't let him into the debates as a 3rd party. they would simply refuse him access or change the rules if necessary.

What would he do about it? Sue? That has worked for exactly zero past people that sued over access to the debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

No it wouldn't. The Commission on Presidential Debates was started by and controlled by the Democrat and Republican parties. If Randal failed to get the GOP nomination they wouldn't let him into the debates as a 3rd party. they would simply refuse him access or change the rules if necessary.

What would he do about it? Sue? That has worked for exactly zero past people that sued over access to the debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Rand would be over the threshold of 15% support. It would be very hard to keep him out with the amount of support I think he's going to garner. It's kind of mote though because I believe Rand will win the GOP nomination.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand does not *WANT* to bomb any foreign countries outside of defense of our embassies which have been established by treaty contracts. If people like FreedomFanatuic did a better job educating the public on basic libertarians principles, Rand would not be put into a bind like this. Go get busy and educate instead of bitching about Rand Paul.

I do the best I can. I talk about libertarian principles every chance I get. I cannot single handedly change this country. Heck, Ron Paul couldn't single handedly do it, and he's a far better and more efficient man than I am. Expecting a relatively recently converted libertarian college student to single handedly change the country is just insane. I am as entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else. And this doesn't really qualify as an anti-Rand post either. I like him. But let's be honest about what he is, a conservative with some libertarian leanings, not a libertarian.

 

[Brett85]

But let's be honest about what he is, a conservative with some libertarian leanings, not a libertarian.

That's what he is publicly. Perhaps not privately.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Which is why I say this would never happen and just some journalist looking to write something different. If it was gonna happen, it would have happened in 2008 or 2012 when Ron was an option who was much more an ideal candidate for both the CP and LP. Randal is a much better GOP candidate by comparison.

The key issue is whether Rand wants it to happen, as in, does he want to win. Ron ultimately did not want to win in 2008 and 2012, so chose not to pursue the third party option, as a means of leveraging himself to victory in getting the Republican nomination. The LP and CP are willing to consider co-nomination, but the parties are not passive doormats. The candidate has to SHOW UP at their conventions and ask for the nomination, to then be voted up or down as the nominee. And it's not just "some journalist" that is thinking about this---for the story to appear in a major national journal, the editors must be thinking the idea is plausible as well.

 

[Brett85]

Johnson, a former Republican, says he’d like to seek the Libertarian nomination again - though he’s not firmly committed to doing so - and says Libertarians should not nominate Paul.

“If that happened it would be really anti-libertarian,” he says, describing Paul’s positions on immigration, abortion, drug policy, same-sex marriage and military interventions abroad as insufficiently in line with the Libertarian Party.

Lol. How in the world does Gary Johnson think he has the right to criticize Rand over military interventions when Johnson came out strongly in favor of so called "humanitarian wars?"

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Rand does not *WANT* to bomb any foreign countries outside of defense of our embassies which have been established by treaty contracts. If people like FreedomFanatuic did a better job educating the public on basic libertarians principles, Rand would not be put into a bind like this. Go get busy and educate instead of bitching about Rand Paul.

Pretty sure Rand has gone on record saying he's in favor of ISIS-targeted airstrikes in Iraq & Syria.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and educate yourself.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think there would be many LP members who would throw a fit if they had to work with the social conservatives in the Constitution Party, sadly.

 

[T.hill]

I do the best I can. I talk about libertarian principles every chance I get. I cannot single handedly change this country. Heck, Ron Paul couldn't single handedly do it, and he's a far better and more efficient man than I am. Expecting a relatively recently converted libertarian college student to single handedly change the country is just insane. I am as entitled to my opinion as much as anyone else. And this doesn't really qualify as an anti-Rand post either. I like him. But let's be honest about what he is, a conservative with some libertarian leanings, not a libertarian.

Alright, list me the actual positions he holds or actions he has taken that would be more accurately described as 'conservative' and then further expound on how those stances are more conservative than libertarian.

Iran sanction votes? Military aid to Israel? Support for air strikes against ISIS? First, it's important to identify the characteristics that distinguish a conservative from a libertarian and then compare and contrast those distinctions with beliefs Rand holds or votes he has taken.

I find it hard to believe that you can seriously claim that Rand is a conservative in some way or another who just so happens has some libertarian ideas. Especially when Rand's pro-libertarian positions and votes heavily outnumber those that potentially aren't.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Lol. How in the world does Gary Johnson think he has the right to criticize Rand over military interventions when Johnson came out strongly in favor of so called "humanitarian wars?"

Gary was on the Kony 2012 train

 

[Brett85]

Gary Johnson criticizes Rand for not supporting gay marriage when Gary openly opposed gay marriage in 2010, before he became the Libertarian Party nominee and flip flopped on the issue.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/10/gary-johnson-distances-himself

Q: Isn't the true libertarian position to support gay marriage?

A: I've taken the position that I support gay unions.

Q: Why not marriage? What's the difference?

A: Right or wrong, that's what I'm advocating.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Alright, list me the actual positions he holds or actions he has taken that would be more accurately described as 'conservative' and then further expound on how those stances are more conservative than libertarian.

Iran sanction votes? Military aid to Israel? Support for air strikes against ISIS?

All of that. Support for some drug regulations. Only very minimal references to blowback (I know this isn't a policy per say, but it relates to a greater mindset.) Wants to partly privatize the TSA but not completely. Called Chris Kyle a "hero" (again, not a policy but related to a greater mindset. I don't see how a libertarian can call an overseas murderer a "hero" unless he's just flat out lying.) Wants to keep some foreign military bases THere have probably been other issues but those are the ones that immediately come to mind. (Note also that I am using minarchism as the standard here, not anarcho-capitalism, which I think is fair considering Ron Paul was a minarchist as well, and if I were ever to run for political office it would almost certainly be with minarchist positions.)

Don't misunderstand me. I like Rand Paul. Walter Block says Rand is 70% libertarian. That sounds fairly close to right. I plan to vote for him and support him. So, while this is criticism of Paul, its not an attack. Keep that in mind.

First, it's important to identify the characteristics that distinguish a conservative from a libertarian and then compare and contrast those distinctions with beliefs Rand holds or votes he has taken.

libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle. That doesn't mean that it must be the libertarian's epistemological starting point. Nor is it to say that one must be perfectly consistent regarding the NAP to be a libertarian (indeed, its a PRINCIPLE after all, and we all disagree with each other on one or two things at the least.) But it does mean that the non-aggression principle plays a SIGNIFICANT role in policy debates. Ron Paul has done this, he has regularly and consistently challenged the idea of government prohibiting actions which all parties freely consent to, and he has applied these views to economic policy, gun policy, drug policy, and especially foreign policy in a fairly consistent manner. Sure, there are a few positions I could nitpick on, but all of those are things that we could reasonably disagree on even with the NAP.

I'm less sure of exactly what conservatism is, especially since there are so many different versions. Some would even call me a conservative (though I don't claim to be one.) To be clear, I am NOT saying Rand is a neoconservative. John McCain is a neoconservative. Lindsey Graham is a neocon. Rand Paul is a (mostly) constitutional conservative. Conservatives are more pragmatic in nature, more willing to intervene overseas (though not in a reflexive neocon way necessarily), conservatives aren't necessarily that ideological, conservatives think "family values" can be enforced through government intervention to some degree, they don't necessarily support total drug freedom, and they think highly of government "service" in the military and so forth. THat's not to say every conservative will hold every single one of these characteristics. BUt these are all areas where Rand is more conservative than libertarian.

I find it hard to believe that you can seriously claim that Rand is a conservative in some way or another who just so happens has some libertarian ideas. Especially when Rand's pro-libertarian positions and votes heavily outnumber those that potentially aren't.

If your version of "conservative" is the "moderate" Republicans of today, I can see your point. But I don't really think of them as conservative. When I think conservative, I think of people like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Chuck Baldwin, Traditional Conservative [the poster] etc. I think of most modern Republicans as just being neocon authoritarians, with no real liberty oriented principles at all.

Is Rand closer to anarcho-capitalism than he is to modern neoconservatism? I'm not exactly sure how to assess something like that in the modern political paradigm, but I wouldn't really argue with you if you claimed that he was. But I'd still say that that makes him a conservative. He's localist, smaller government, more realistic on foreign policy, and pragmatic. He is NOT a believer in the non-aggression principle, total personal bodily freedom*, total foreign policy non-intervention, and a total economic non-interventionist.

*Note that I do NOT refer to abortion here, which NAP believers are on both sides on (and I'm strongly pro-life.) I refer to laws against certain consensual sexual practices, and especially restrictions on drug freedom.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Most libertarian since Coolidge or maybe even Grover Cleveland. Plus, as an added bonus he's well-read in the Austrian tradition of economics.

Rand is A LOT more libertarian than Coolidge or Cleveland. You need to go back a lot farther.

 

[Matt Collins]

Ok - this is a bad idea for 2 reasons:

1- if he is on the ballot for two parties, it could split his vote

2- the stigma of being associated with the LP could hurt him with voters

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Ok - this is a bad idea for 2 reasons:

1- if he is on the ballot for two parties, it could split his vote

2- the stigma of being associated with the LP could hurt him with voters

I heard the Constitution Party wants to nominate him as well.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand is A LOT more libertarian than Coolidge or Cleveland. You need to go back a lot farther.

I'd be curious to see some info on this. I do know that Rand would certainly be the most libertarian since Coolidge (provided he didn't seriously compromise further between now and then) but there weren't even any halfway libertarian POTUSes between Herbert Hoover and now. I know Coolidge mostly was (he did, unfortunately, enforce prohibition) and I know Cleveland mostly was (The only anti-libertarian thing he did that I know of was build some internal improvements, but I don't know the details. I'm not as knowledgeable on Cleveland or Coolidge as I'd like to be.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

That's what he is publicly. Perhaps not privately.

I don't honestly know what he personally thinks, but if he is putting on a show, he's going to keep putting it on (for better or for worse) throughout his Presidency. He's not going to just win the election and then be like "yeah, I'm actually a hardcore libertarian."

I wouldn't actually be surprised if he personally believes in minarchism, but it won't actually make a difference even if he does.

Lol. How in the world does Gary Johnson think he has the right to criticize Rand over military interventions when Johnson came out strongly in favor of so called "humanitarian wars?"

lol! Unfortunately that's the point on which he's actually correct (as well as drug policy), even though it is hypocritical on GJ's part. The points on abortion and SSM are just silly. Rand is as libertarian as Johnson on the latter and more so on the former (pro-choice is an anti-libertarian position.)

Incidentally, Gary Johnson did call Ron Paul his hero during the third party debates, and Ron doesn't agree with GJ on abortion or SSM either. I can just imagine GJ someday telling the press that I'm not libertarian enough to be nominated for the LP even though I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I don't support "abortion rights" or government granted marriage licenses

I think there would be many LP members who would throw a fit if they had to work with the social conservatives in the Constitution Party, sadly.

I don't know much about the Constitution Party in particular (and they may be in line with me on this) but I think for any truce between liberty-minded social conservatives and liberty minded libertarians to work, both sides would have to be willing to agree on leaving social issues to the states. Or even better, counties (which is more or less what most theonomists support doing.)

 

[alucard13mm]

I don't think Libertarians and CP should nominated Rand Paul because I feel it will complicate things and give the GOP dinosaurs a reason or excuse to make up some bullshit ruling to disqualify Rand or some crap like that.