Pliny Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Why is Rand Paul part of the Republican Party caucas? I am sure you must realize the Republican Party is a right wing party. Most libertarians prior to the 1930's were on the left side of the spectrum and were aligned more with classical liberalism. During the thirties the socialists more or less took control of the left side of the spectrum. FDR for instance implemented many socialist concepts such as social security, and huge government make work projects and bureaucracies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority. The conservative movement at that time, at least in America, tried to put the brakes on the move toward big government which was traditionally the place of classical liberalism and libertarianism. bloodyminded: It should also be noted that there is a genuine, intellectual libertarian movement in the United States, and they don't seem too crazy about Paul. They feel that being so closely aligned with social conservatives (and Paul is one) is dfamaging to their movement, and antithetical to their political beliefs. What is the genuine intellectual libertarian movement called? Or are they just individualists? Which ones don't seem too crazy about Paul? I don't believe he is aligned with social conservatives, as I understand the label. What do you mean by social conservatives? Social conservatives to me have their own special interests that they expect government to serve. I Don't believe he is advocating for government to provide anything in his interest that is above or beyond the interests of every American. DrGreenthumb: I am a left wing libertarian. I see the value in a government taxing us in return for services provided, and infrastructure being built, but will never accept government interference in our civil liberties. There is such a thing as left-wing libertarians. A discussion of them is in the book "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans Hermann Hoppe and with which I agree that basically states libertarianism is more naturally aligned with conservatism than the progressive liberalism of today. Liberalism in the classical sense, that is small non-interventionist government and individualism, are it's fundamental roots. There are a few left-wing libertarians here. My differences with them are in my understanding of government not as a benevolent, charitable agency providing society with services to ease social problems. Government must take before it can give, and if it has license to give to some over others then it has licence to dictate the terms of it's benevolence and entitlement. In my view this gives too much direct control over a persons life. I find left-wing libertarians don't mind the concept of the welfare state and are probably there because they can't see aligning with the warfare state of social conservatism and the dictatorial mores of a right-wing political ideology. Dictating mores is not a part of libertarian fundamentals and is the point that separates conservative political ideology from libertarianism. It doesn't mean however, that an individual, of a libertarian persuasion should not set any mores for himself or leave them to the vagueness of moral relativism or be void of any behavioral social standards. It means he should decide them himself and have his own standard of mores and sense of ethics. The left-wing libertarian, in my view, while agreeing with me it is not the place for government to dictate moral behavior does not see that they need to place any restriction upon themselves either. It has been my experience that left wing libertarians usually have single issue concerns about government interference in individual freedom, such as DrGreenthumbs concern about the legalization of marijuana or the use of drugs in society. Eyeball, a frequent contributor to the forum and a self described left-wing libertarian has his issues with government intervention, but does not see any incongruity in government controlling other aspects of individual behavior. Something I can't seem to reconcile as consistent with libertarianism. I have certain standards I set for myself that I attempt to live by so that makes me more of a conservative on an individual not political level. In other words any chains on my behavior or expected moral behavior are set by myself. I think the left-wing libertarian believes he should just have freedom and do whatever he wants as long as it isn't harmful or an initiation of force against another. So it is OK to do drugs, engage in S&M, prostitution and that is no ones business. In other words libertarianism gives him license to do whatever he wishes to privately but wouldn't admit to publicly. That's my criticism of left wing libertarianism. Edited March 15, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 I find left-wing libertarians don't mind the concept of the welfare state and are probably there because they can't see aligning with the warfare state of social conservatism and the dictatorial mores of a right-wing political ideology. Left wing libertarians believe that dismantling the welfare state would be disastrous to human beings as things stand--but it would be the ultimate goal. They'd posit that there needs to be big economic/political/social changes that would occur in order to wean society off of the safety net. More precisely, they believe there should be a social safety net--rather like having insurance--but that it would rarely need be used. It's idealistic, but it is not radically different from conservative libertarianism. They too usually contend that a person who sincerely and genuinely needs welfare (for one example), through no fault of his or her own--and such people certainly do exist--would be eligible. Libertarianism need to get absolutely religious about a sink-or-swim ethos. No rule exists without exceptions. Dictating mores is not a part of libertarian fundamentals and is the point that separates conservative political ideology from libertarianism. It doesn't mean however, that an individual, of a libertarian persuasion should not set any mores for himself or leave them to the vagueness of moral relativism or be void of any behavioral social standards. It means he should decide them himself and have his own standard of mores and sense of ethics. The left-wing libertarian, in my view, while agreeing with me it is not the place for government to dictate moral behavior does not see that they need to place any restriction upon themselves either. It has been my experience that left wing libertarians usually have single issue concerns about government interference in individual freedom, such as DrGreenthumbs concern about the legalization of marijuana or the use of drugs in society. Eyeball, a frequent contributor to the forum and a self described left-wing libertarian has his issues with government intervention, but does not see any incongruity in government controlling other aspects of individual behavior. Something I can't seem to reconcile as consistent with libertarianism. I have certain standards I set for myself that I attempt to live by so that makes me more of a conservative on an individual not political level. In other words any chains on my behavior or expected moral behavior are set by myself. I think the left-wing libertarian believes he should just have freedom and do whatever he wants as long as it isn't harmful or an initiation of force against another. So it is OK to do drugs, engage in S&M, prostitution and that is no ones business. In other words libertarianism gives him license to do whatever he wishes to privately but wouldn't admit to publicly. That's my criticism of left wing libertarianism. I don't know if this is a fair assessment. Many self-styled conservative libertarians are one-issue horses as well: namely, taxes. Even as it stands, taxes remains the primary (or at least most often-mentioned) libertarian concern. The one issue has so overwhelmed the discussions on libertarianism that I think everybody else can be fogiven for thinking this is the only libertarian issue. It isn't, I know, I know; but it's the fault of the libertarians that it appears to be. Also, and I don't know why you have difficulty understanding this, people of a leftish persuasion can and do work from moral and ethical principles. You make it sound as if they lack these entirely, and that everything they say is predicated on selfish individual desires. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
maple_leafs182 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Being a I left wing libertarian, I would say the prime difference between right wing and a left wing libertarian is that right wing libertarians believe more in capitalism where left wing libertarians believe more in some form of socialism. Pliny, I know you consider government running parts of the economy as being socialism, and if that is the case, I would agree with you and other libertarian conservatives and say that capitalism or the free market is more effective. However I truly believe that the entire economic system needs to be overhauled, I think that economic decisions should be made at the local level using a scientific method to better manage the resources. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2011 Report Posted March 15, 2011 Why is Rand Paul part of the Republican Party caucas? I am sure you must realize the Republican Party is a right wing party. Ron Paul, (and possibly Rand Paul) are the old school Republicans. You could consider them traditional Republicans, while the current state of the Republican party has deviated far from the original intention and implementation of said party. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Pliny Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Ron Paul, (and possibly Rand Paul) are the old school Republicans. You could consider them traditional Republicans, while the current state of the Republican party has deviated far from the original intention and implementation of said party. True. And if you look back further in history, before 1930, you will find the roots of Libertarianism in Classical liberalism. Republicanism has always been associated with conservatism by the definition of conservative - a preservation or "conservation" of the status quo. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
pinko Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 True. And if you look back further in history, before 1930, you will find the roots of Libertarianism in Classical liberalism. Republicanism has always been associated with conservatism by the definition of conservative - a preservation or "conservation" of the status quo. I appreciate the background information you and others have provided. However the problems facing the USA won't realistically be solved by the belief system Mr. Paul claims to embrace. Quote
Pliny Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Being a I left wing libertarian, I would say the prime difference between right wing and a left wing libertarian is that right wing libertarians believe more in capitalism where left wing libertarians believe more in some form of socialism. Basically, what I said, which seems in-congruent with individual freedom. Socialism implies collective ownership of property. And I see the vision. Everyone sharing. Great in the land of plenty but doesn't work where resources need allocating. Is it best to work towards this land of plenty by having someone determine what everyone should have and then have everyone work to supply it? Individual needs and wants, preferences and importance's are not identical person to person. We could make one automobile and that may be considered scientifically efficient economically but some people don't want an automobile. Will they care that resources are being wasted and allocated to the manufacture of cars? The tendency is that people will be responsible for and have more respect for private property and be less inclined to be responsible for or respect public property - unless they are assigned the responsibility in which case the person doing the assigning considers the property his. Another individual may have a different idea for that "public" property. Pliny, I know you consider government running parts of the economy as being socialism, and if that is the case, I would agree with you and other libertarian conservatives and say that capitalism or the free market is more effective. However I truly believe that the entire economic system needs to be overhauled, I think that economic decisions should be made at the local level using a scientific method to better manage the resources. Economic decisions using a scientific method made at the local level? Economics is partly an art. The scientific method would reduce it to being a mathematical calculation. And, we find that Economics is today taught more as mathematics making it more "Econometrics" than Economics. These local level decision making bodies are known as "communes". The Israelis called them a "kibbutz". I agree the economic system needs to be overhauled, however you somehow believe a body overseeing the economy, in the form of some "scientific" system would manage and dictate economics at the local level. Once you slip into using "scientific" information for decision-making in economics you've essentially lost half of what economics consists and assign responsibility to a central authority - using science, of course. Unfortunately, it is darn near impossible for non-scientists to argue with science. Adopting science as a method to run an economy is the road to authoritarianism and is indeed what is presently occurring. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) I appreciate the background information you and others have provided. However the problems facing the USA won't realistically be solved by the belief system Mr. Paul claims to embrace. ....and the problems facing the USA are? I think you believe they are the same problems other countries have. Poverty. Economic inequality. Worker exploitation and abuse. Health care. Education. Lack of regulation in the economy. Profit and greed. The governments of just about every first world country are working to resolve these problems. Are they realistically being solved or is there a constant pressure being economically applied to their "realistic" solution that bodes economic collapse. The USA's primary problem is battling forces to approach it's problems in the same manner as every other country is doing. Unfortunately, I have not seen any first world country resolve the problem of health care, education, poverty, economic inequality, etc. without creating more problems, such as, most importantly, systemic inflexibility, and a future liability in sustaining the "realistic" solutions. So the basic problem facing the USA is whether it should get in step with the rest of the world or keep it's Constitution intact. Edited March 18, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I don't know if this is a fair assessment. Many self-styled conservative libertarians are one-issue horses as well: namely, taxes. Even as it stands, taxes remains the primary (or at least most often-mentioned) libertarian concern. The one issue has so overwhelmed the discussions on libertarianism that I think everybody else can be fogiven for thinking this is the only libertarian issue. It isn't, I know, I know; but it's the fault of the libertarians that it appears to be. Also, and I don't know why you have difficulty understanding this, people of a leftish persuasion can and do work from moral and ethical principles. You make it sound as if they lack these entirely, and that everything they say is predicated on selfish individual desires. Some "conservative" libertarians may have a special concern about taxes but it is related to the major concern, that being, the economy in general. As for people of a leftish persuasion working from a moral and ethical persuasion, I do understand that. Generally, they do, and similar to people of a rightish persuasion, will try and establish those moral and ethical principles in law. Perhaps the difference lies in the principle that those of a leftish persuasion believe laws of mores and ethics are necessary, not for themselves, but for other people and those of a rightish persuasion believe their standard is necessary to all and should be established in law. Both require government intervention in society and a level of social engineering. The libertarian believes no mores or ethics should be set in law and the right of freedom of association be preserved. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
maple_leafs182 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 here is an excellent Rand Paul video It is Rand speaking on the floor on the senate about how Obama is taking the nation to war without having a debate in congress. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
Pliny Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 here is an excellent Rand Paul video It is Rand speaking on the floor on the senate about how Obama is taking the nation to war without having a debate in congress. I guess, Obama, being a Constitutional Lawyer has arrived at the same conclusion as Bush, who is not a Constitutional Lawyer just a politician, that the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper. As soon as all politicians can agree on that then so is their currency. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Now here's an awesome Rand Paul video! Rand Paul Mocks Newt Gingrich: ‘He Has More War Positions Than He Has Wives’ Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted April 1, 2011 Report Posted April 1, 2011 Now here's an awesome Rand Paul video! I thought it in rather poor taste but I suppose negative personal attacks are something you would have a good laugh at. Not that I am a fan of Newt Gingrich. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Shady Posted April 2, 2011 Author Report Posted April 2, 2011 here is an excellent Rand Paul video It is Rand speaking on the floor on the senate about how Obama is taking the nation to war without having a debate in congress. Great video! Rand Paul IS AWESOME once again! On Wednesday, Paul, with little notice, attached an amendment to the small-business re-authorization bill. The amendment, which chastises President Obama for his actions in Libya, urges members to adopt the president’s own words as “the sense of the Senate.”To make his point, Paul quoted, in the legislative language, from Obama’s 2007 remarks on the subject: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” According to Paul’s office, “the measure aims to put the Senate on record affirming Congress as the body with constitutional authority on matters of war.” GOP sources tell National Review Online that Paul’s proposal flummoxed Reid, who does not want his members to have to weigh in on Obama’s dusty quote about congressional authority, even if the vote is only to table the measure. NR Quote
maple_leafs182 Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Now here's an awesome Rand Paul video! Nice. Quote │ _______ [███STOP███]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ :::::::--------------Conservatives beleive ▄▅█FUNDING THIS█▅▄▃▂- - - - - --- -- -- -- -------- Liberals lie I██████████████████] ...◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙'(='.'=)' ⊙
Oleg Bach Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 I like a guy that is old and leathery enough to spit in the eye of liars... Quote
pinko Posted April 2, 2011 Report Posted April 2, 2011 Rand Paul’s historical misfire in the debate over Libya By Glenn Kessler “Well, you know, it's never that easy to remove people from power -- even, you know, in Serbia and in Iraq we found that bombing alone didn't do it. Actually, ground troops had to go in and do it. There are many here in Washington now advocating ground troops. I think it's a slippery slope and it could it engage us in a third war.” --Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), March 30, 2011 The Obama administration’s intervention in Libya has generated many questions in Congress about the scale of the effort, the goals and the extent of congressional consultation. While administration officials have argued that the operation will be “time-limited and scope-limited,” including the creation of a no-fly zone to protect civilians from being overrun by government forces, the revelation that CIA operatives are in Libya gathering intelligence on rebel forces has raised new questions. Adding to some of the confusion over U.S. goals in the operation, President Obama has said that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi “must go” while saying that Gaddafi’s departure is not the goal of the military strikes. The junior senator from Kentucky, in the quote above, drew on the lessons of history to argue that air power by itself will not dislodge Gaddafi. We are not going to dispute his larger point—that a combination of ground forces and air strikes is more effective than air power alone. But how accurate is his history lesson? The Facts On Serbia, Rand needs to hit the history books. The NATO air campaign against Serbia targets, which lasted from March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999, was not intended to change the regime, but to thwart another wave of killings, expulsions and ethnic-cleansing associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia. NATO—which in 1995 had attacked Serb targets to force an end to the conflict in Bosnia—began bombing after Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic rejected international pressure to accept a peace agreement with rebels from the restive Albanian province of Kosovo. Milosevic moved his forces into Kosovo, essentially calling NATO’s bluff, and so the West responded with force. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-historical-misfire-in-the-debate-over-libya/2011/03/31/AFASjyBC_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics Rand appears somewhat confused. Quote
WIP Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 I thought it in rather poor taste but I suppose negative personal attacks are something you would have a good laugh at. Not that I am a fan of Newt Gingrich. What most surprised me was that he took a few swipes at FoxNews also. That pretty much rules out any future plans he might have of running for president. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
pinko Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Republican Senator Rand Paul has made it repeatedly clear that he sides with businesses when it comes to absolutely any sort of financial policy or regulation -- be it taxes or toilets. Still, even his own home state of Kentucky seemed somewhat shocked when he stated that there is no reason to continue with any policies to help decrease the instances of black lung among coal miners, declaring any intervention or government regulation too "burdensome" on companies in comparison to the amount of lives it could potentially save. The Courier-Journal reports: Sen. Rand Paul questioned the need Thursday for new federal new coal-mining rules to reduce black-lung disease, despite federal figures showing the illness has been on the rise in recent years, killing about 1,500 miners annually. The Kentucky Republican, a frequent critic of government regulations, said during a Senate hearing that black-lung rates had dropped dramatically since 1969, when a law to combat the illness took effect. “Every regulation doesn't save lives,” Paul said at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome and our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the cost.” Paul said during the hearing that the government had done “a pretty good job” in recent decades of reducing the incidence of black lung — an often incurable and fatal disease caused by breathing years of coal dust. But figures from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health show a spike in black lung rates in recent years. http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/rand-paul-black-lung-costs/ Perhaps Rand Paul should expose himself to the conditions that give rise to black lung disease. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 What most surprised me was that he took a few swipes at FoxNews also. That pretty much rules out any future plans he might have of running for president. Why ? The current president took swipes at FOX ? They don't get to actually decide who runs the US at this time. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Rand appears somewhat confused. Well, we have to clear up the confusion of whether or not "Ghadaffi must go" and "it is not our objective to remove Ghadaffi", first. What was Rand's confusion? It really isn't too clear. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
pinko Posted April 3, 2011 Report Posted April 3, 2011 Well, we have to clear up the confusion of whether or not "Ghadaffi must go" and "it is not our objective to remove Ghadaffi", first. What was Rand's confusion? It really isn't too clear. Rand likes the idea of exposing his constituents to black lung disease. Rand Paul is a hypocrite. Quote
Shady Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Posted April 3, 2011 Rand likes the idea of exposing his constituents to black lung disease. Rand Paul is a hypocrite. LOL. Of course he does. He probably hates puppies and kittens too. Quote
pinko Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) LOL. Of course he does. He probably hates puppies and kittens too. Apparently he has an aversion to functioning flush toilets too. Edited April 4, 2011 by pinko Quote
Pliny Posted April 4, 2011 Report Posted April 4, 2011 Rand likes the idea of exposing his constituents to black lung disease. Rand Paul is a hypocrite. The government already has regulations on the books regarding black lung disease, and I'm certain the unions have strict guidelines as well. he just doesn't think another rule will make a difference. Do you know why it is claimed to be recently on the rise? Firstly, is the claim true? Secondly, if true, is it possibly some sort of deregulation coupled with an increased demand for coal? Is the coal dustier? The filters clogged? Because Rand Paul doesn't support more government intervention doesn't mean he "likes the idea of exposing his constituents to black lung disease". I can't understand why someone as full of it as yourself doesn't see having to flush three times is simply inefficient and defeats the entire purpose of the change or that flickering, mercury filled bulbs are an advancement in lighting technology. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.