Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

[Matthanuf06]

Well of course. Why would I go down without fighting?

But Rand has to help us out here. Stop confusing everyone. Let us know now: it's not whether WE stand with Rand...it's whether RAND stands with US. And by us, I mean the libertarian wing of his Dad's base...every last ugly one of us. The naked dope-smokers, the conspiracy theorists, anarchists, anti-vaxxers....all of us. Is he standing with us, or do we embarrass him?

I'd like to know.

That isn't the question at all.

The question is he most similar to the "we" that you referenced out of any other candidate.

The answer is a resounding yes.

In order to win a war you actually have to win a battle.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That isn't the question at all.

The question is he most similar to the "we" that you referenced out of any other candidate.

The answer is a resounding yes.

In order to win a war you actually have to win a battle.

No, that is not the question.

In any group of candidates, there will always be one that is closer to us than the others....whether that candidate is far away or as close as gravy on rice.

I stand by my original question.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Did Rand change his beliefs

Why ask me?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe what I should have said is it creates the opportunity for libertarians to challenge their initial dogmatic beliefs whereas reality fits neatly into their world view without problems. Rand is taking an experimental approach that may or may not work, but libertarian theory and economics is much more diverse and complex than the simple antidotes that Ron gave in the GOP debates to familiarize people with it. Ron likely realizes this and so does Rand. For example when Ron was challenged about the environment and how it would fit in with his individualistic views he gave some free-market solutions such as a legal system that would have more coherent and concrete property right laws. This is a simple answer to give people a simple introduction to free market environmentalism. The problem that arises is that when it comes to things like air pollution the market doesn't have a perfect answer, because you can't privatize the air, thus you have a problem with the tragedy of the commons. No one owns the air thus no one has an incentive to protect it. With this "market failure" in mind it may seem that a government solution would be by default better, however, the very problem that limits the ability of the market to provide a solution for air pollution is a problem that universally plagues all government action, that is moral hazard.

OK. That doesn't challenge the validity of my beliefs (speaking only for myself.) But I'll take that as a sufficient answer to the question.

I've always known that the general public isn't ready for total freedom. AF has said that many times on this board, and I've agreed with him.

Not that you asked, but I feel I need to say this here before we go too far along...as of right now, I still plan to vote for Rand...I think there's still enough difference between him and the rest of the field to justify my vote.

The argument I'm making in this thread isn't about MY vote....it's about whether he's had a consistent message (no) and whether that may be causing some confusing among voters who may be answering these polls.

 

[Brett85]

I don't considering trying to avoid war to be entangling alliances, isn't that part of peace/commerce/honest friendship?

Israel can do what they want but that doesn't mean we have to support it. I very much doubt Israel will attack Iran on its own, they're going to try to force us to do it as they have for the last 20 years and even if they do it unilaterally finally they're basically handcuffed to us to so we'd be forced to be involved and take their side. So no, I oppose all Israeli aggression towards Iran, Iran needed reassurance that Israel would not attack them to give up their nuclear program and they need reassurance that the US won't renege on their deal. I do not support any aid to Israel, I do not support the Israeli occupation of Palestinians lands.

No, we shouldn't have to support Israel bombing Iran. But this deal forces our government to try to stop Israel from bombing Iran, and then apparently forces our government to take action against Israel if they bomb Iran. How does that not clearly violate libertarian/non interventionist principles?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If his losing is the outcome, then the pragmatist arguments for Rand's playing politics will have failed with him, AND THE PRAGMATISTS WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THE PURISTS WERE RIGHT. In an honest world, of course.

non sequitur

If Rand's strategy fails, it doesn't follow that the purist strategy would have worked better.

We can, however, compare vote and fundraising totals from this cycle with those in 2012; and, when all is said and done, I'm quite certain that Rand will have outperformed Ron by that metric (whether he gets the nomination or not), which would suggest the superiority of the pragmatic approach.

That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead principle, or for the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.

 

[Wilf]

Why ask me?

Why not?

 

[Matthanuf06]

That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead of the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.

We are currently ex ante so all of this is irrelevant.

In an ex ante world you have to make a decision on the facts at hand.

Would you rather have a purist max out at 10-15% and be guaranteed of a Clinton or Bush presidency?

Or would you rather side with Rand and have a chance at the a White House? A chance that's very small, but a chance nonetheless. And that's why your ex post is irrelevant, Rand would probably lose even if everything went his way.

So what do you choose? It's not about what you wish for, what you want, or who you hope was really running It's about what and who you pick out of the people that are running.

Stand with Rand and have a small chance at a Liberty friendly President?

Or push for the continuance of the Bush/Clinton dynasty?

That choice is yours. There is no third door to open

 

[cajuncocoa]

Why not?

Because I'm not inside his head. Duh.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead of the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.

It would seem that you don't appreciate the nature of this war.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

We are currently ex ante so all of this is irrelevant.

In an ex ante world you have to make a decision on the facts at hand.

Would you rather have a purist max out at 10-15% and be guaranteed of a Clinton or Bush presidency?

Or would you rather side with Rand and have a chance at the a White House? A chance that's very small, but a chance nonetheless. And that's why your ex post is irrelevant, Rand would probably lose even if everything went his way.

So what do you choose? It's not about what you wish for, what you want, or who you hope was really running It's about what and who you pick out of the people that are running.

Stand with Rand and have a small chance at a Liberty friendly President?

Or push for the continuance of the Bush/Clinton dynasty?

That choice is yours. There is no third door to open

The third door or option C, is that we will only get 10-15% of the vote with Rand anyway, despite all his playing politics. There is no reason, with no primary votes yet cast, for feeling certain Rand has a better chance than Ron, other than the non-stop presumption the pragmatic approach is better for achieving that outcome. Until now, there has been no proof of concept to prove that, or not. Whereas, by next spring there will be.

Just saying, be prepared to take credit for advocating for compromising if it works, OR to take responsibility for pushing it, if it doesn't work. I strongly suspect that if it's the latter, the movement will be going back to 'purity' regardless of what the pragmatists think, what they wish for, or what they want.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It would seem that you don't appreciate the nature of this war.

It would seem you don't appreciate WINNING the war, unless it's done via pragmatism, even if that method never ends up winning. Feeling superior to the purists seems to be the main thing some people care about on this thread, which is why I mentioned that is majoring in the minors.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Remember the good old days before Trump, when the biggest controversy was who did and didn't support Rand?

 

[Jamesiv1]

Remember the good old days before Trump, when the biggest controversy was who did and didn't support Rand?

B.T (before Trump) = boring
A.T. (after Trump) = awesome!

 

[sylcfh]

That author is a comedian.

The National Review is full neocon. Most of them are.