Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...

[FrankRep]

That would require Rand Paul to actually be a libertarian.

Rand Paul is a "libertarian Republican." Remember?

 

[Brett85]

I'm trying to get Rand Paul elected. Rand Paul will never get the nomination with your radical "legalize Heroin" platform.

Again, two words: States' rights. Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.

 

[FrankRep]

You know what? If I have to advocate institutionalized kidnapping in order to win, than screw winning. Its not actually doable anyway...

Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.

 

[FrankRep]

Again, two words: States' rights. Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.

Two words for you: Lost Primary

 

[Spikender]

Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.

The problem is that too many libertarians have souls.

If only we could perfect the art of shedding those useless little things...

 

[Brett85]

Two words for you: Lost Primary

Are you kidding? Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Come now, that was before Rand said this. Play fair.

And yet, I bet Alex Jones, the King of Overreacting, won't overreact to Rand Paul saying this. That should tell you something.

Alex Jones' Wikipedia: "He has also called himself a paleoconservative and an "aggressive constitutionalist".

 

[Spikender]

And yet, I bet Alex Jones, the King of Overreacting, won't overreact to Rand Paul saying this. That should tell you something.

Alex Jones' Wikipedia: "He has also called himself a paleoconservative and an "aggressive constitutionalist".

What is "overreacting" in your book?

I don't think anyone here has even overreacted.

Because at this point, I expect all of these responses. So to me, this is just reacting.

But on that note, notice that Alex Jones didn't call himself a paleoconservative while also saying that he's "Not a conservative - I don't advocate being a war-mongering douchenozzle who only hungers for more war. I'm a paleoconservative. An aggresive constituationalist."

Would that have been too hard for Rand to do? You know, to not add that part on?

 

[FrankRep]

Are you kidding? Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?

"Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure. I do have some disagreements with libertarians, but the drug war isn't one of them. I disagree with libertarians on a few issues like abortion, gay marriage, border security, and the death penalty. Many libertarians would disagree with me on those issues. My ideology overall is basically a combination of libertarianism and conservatism. I'm kind of a "libertarian conservative." That's kind of what Rand calls himself, but it seems as though I'm quite a bit more libertarian than Rand when I support completely ending the drug war and basically legalizing everything in which there's no victim. (Gay marriage is not a crime, so I don't believe my rule applies to that issue)

Abortion is definitely up for debate for libertarians at any level. The death penalty is also definitely up for debate at any level (I'm assuming you're for capital punishment and you think libertarians are against it? Have you read what Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, and Stephan Kinsella have said about it? All ancaps, all for the death penalty in varying circumstances [IIRC, Block and Rothbard supported it just for murder, while Kinsella even supported it for other things that cause near-equal harm as murder as well {Kinsella wrote an entire long Mises journal on his views on capital punishment, and I can't really quickly summarize it.] Granted, of course, libertarians CAN be abolitionists on the death penalty, but they don't have to be.) I guess an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't really believe in border security, at least not long-term, but I see no reason why a minarchist would have a problem with that. Immigration is a bit of a tricky one that libertarians don't really agree on either, anarcho-capitalists all agree with each other on the ultimate solution but disagree on what the second best solution in a statist world is.

The only issue on that list that I could see arguably being simple is gay marriage. Do you disagree with getting the government out of marriage? Admittedly, when you remove that as an option (And it probably isn't an option in real life), what exactly the second best option is becomes tricky.

Me personally? I'm pro-life. I support the death penalty completely on principle, although I'm increasingly more uncomfortable with it in practice (I'd rather let a guilty man escape the death penalty than to use the irreversible punishment on an innocent man), and I definitely support protecting the border but I'm against most immigration restrictions, if that makes sense.

 

[Spikender]

"Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election

Legalize Anything = Lost Primary / Lost Election

 

[Brett85]

"Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election

I'm not saying that Rand should say that Heroin should be legalized. He can say that he's opposed to Heroin legalization but still say that matters of crime should be handled at the state level under our Constitution. Again, that's just part of being a "Constitutional Conservative."

 

[erowe1]

But on that note, notice that Alex Jones didn't call himself a paleoconservative while also saying that he's "Not a conservative - I don't advocate being a war-mongering douchenozzle who only hungers for more war. I'm a paleoconservative. An aggresive constituationalist."

Would that have been too hard for Rand to do? You know, to not add that part on?

Rand could have not added that part. But it's better that he did.

 

[Spikender]

Rand could have not added that part. But it's better that he did.

How is it better that he did?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Again, two words: States' rights. Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.

A real conservative would agree with this, but that makes me wonder how many Republicans are actually conservatives. Granted, 60% of them may agree with state's rights on pot, but at least some portion of that group isn't going to agree to it for heroin.

Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.

We aren't winning. Rand Paul MIGHT be winning. But Rand Paul isn't nearly as radical as I am. I'm still losing.

Are you kidding? Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?

Again, Republicans =/= conservatives. Every real conservative would agree with you. I'm not sure how many Republicans will.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Rand Paul is a "libertarian Republican." Remember?

I know what he called himself. But its a total joke. And I say that as someone who is planning to vote for Rand in 2016. He's not libertarian.

 

[FrankRep]

I'm not saying that Rand should say that Heroin should be legalized. He can say that he's opposed to Heroin legalization but still say that matters of crime should be handled at the state level under our Constitution. Again, that's just part of being a "Constitutional Conservative."

Look up "Political Strategy" someone. You want Rand Paul to commit political suicide.

 

[Spikender]

Look up "Political Strategy" someone. You want Rand Paul to commit political suicide.

Sad that advocating following the Constitution is political suicide.

This country man.

 

[Brett85]

The only issue on that list that I could see arguably being simple is gay marriage. Do you disagree with getting the government out of marriage? Admittedly, when you remove that as an option (And it probably isn't an option in real life), what exactly the second best option is becomes tricky.

I'm not quite there yet. I recognize that getting the government out of marriage is the libertarian position, so I don't claim to have the libertarian position on that issue. I mean I support getting rid of some of the benefits. For example, I think it should be up to private hospitals to determine visitation rights, rather than having that mandated on them by the government. There are also other things within marriage that I think should be privatized. But, I have a hard time with the idea that there should be no definition of marriage at all. We have an amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I don't really see a problem with that. It's not an amendment that contains penalties for any victimless activity. It doesn't throw gays in prison for any victimless activity.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Frank- If you don't support the drug war, at least say that publicly rather than publicly acting like you do and then privately telling me otherwise while stinging me with a neg rep. Not that I actually care about the rep, but that's just a cheap shot.