Rand Paul Is Not A Libertarian

[Dominus Atheos]

On April 7, Rand Paul — the junior Senator from Kentucky — will announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Paul is pitching himself as “a different kind of Republican leader.” Media reports tout his appeal to “young conservatives and libertarians.”

Libertarians, in general, are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, with a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. His father, Ron Paul is a “libertarian cult figure” who had tremendous appeal to young Republicans. Rand Paul is clearly marketing himself as the heir apparent to those supporters — the one candidate with a chance of expanding the Republican base.

But is Rand Paul a libertarian? He certainly likes to talk like a libertarian. Let’s take a look at where he stands on the issues.

Rand Paul Opposes Abortion Rights, Sponsored Legislation That Would Make All Abortions Illegal

Rand Paul vehemently opposes abortion rights. He is a sponsor of “The Life at Conception Act,” a radical piece of legislation associated with the personhood movement that says “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” The purpose of the legislation is to outlaw all abortion. Paul talked about his bill extensively in a fundraising video for the National Pro-Life Alliance:



Paul has a zero percent from Planned Parenthood and a perfect rating from the National Right To Life Counsel.

Rand Paul Opposes Same-Sex Marriage, Finds It ‘Offensive’

Rand Paul is a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage. Paul said the idea of a marriage between a same-sex couples “offends myself and a lot of people.” He also warned against the Republican party shifting its position on marriage equality. “If you tell people from Alabama, Mississippi or Georgia, ‘You know what, guys, we’ve been wrong, and we’re gonna be the pro-gay-marriage party,’ they’re… gonna stay home,” Paul said in an interview with the New York Times.

Paul warned that deviating from “traditional” marriage could lead to people marrying animals. “It is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further,” Paul told Glenn Back. “Does it have to be humans? You know, I mean. So there really are—the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation?” (Paul later said he was being sarcastic.) He also mocked Obama’s decision to support marriage equality. “Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer,” Paul quipped. Paul’s “joke” was condemned as out-of-bounds by anti-gay activist Tony Perkins.

Paul dipped his toe into libertarian thinking by saying that marriage should be “left to the states.” Paul admitted, however, that he only holds this view because he thinks it’s the best way to keep marriage equality out of most states. “I think right now if we say we’re only going to [have] a federally mandated one man, one woman marriage, we’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” Paul told CBN’s David Brody.

Paul received a 100 percent rating from the Family Research Council, one of the nation’s most prominent social conservative organizations.

Rand Paul Supports A Massive Increase In Defense Spending

Not so long ago, Rand Paul broke from Republican orthodoxy on defense spending and supported substantial cuts. A budget he introduced in 2011 called for a $164 billion cut in defense spending by 2016. But last month Paul abruptly reversed positions and proposed “a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years—a roughly 16 percent increase.” TIME called Paul’s switch a “stunning reversal.”

Rand Paul Supports Extensive Use Of Drones At Home And Abroad

In 2013, Rand Paul staged a 13-hour filibuster against CIA Director nominee John Brennan, demanding answers on the use of drones by the United States government. But Paul’s filibuster, which drew plaudits from civil libertarians, was much less than met the eye.

Paul was only protesting the use of drones in the very limited scenario of “a targeted killing ordered against a U.S. citizen on American soil” — something that has never happened. Paul introduced legislation that would prevent the use of a drone against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without a warrant, which the Pentagon says would be prohibited by existing law. But Paul supports the use of drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. He also supports the use of drones on U.S. soil as part of a border security effort.

Rand Paul Opposes The Legalization Of Marijuana

Rand Paul’s position on drugs like marijuana is “not to legalize them.” He stresses that smoking marijuana is “a bad thing to do.” Paul’s view is that instead of legalization, penalties for drug use and possession should be reduced.

Reason, a libertarian magazine, is not impressed: “He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That’s not remotely libertarian.”

Paul did recently support a bill that would assure states that legalize medical marijuana that patients would not be federally prosecuted.

Rand Paul Suggested Putting People In Prison For Listening To ‘Radical Political Speeches’

In a 2011 interview with Sean Hannity, Paul said he opposed some kinds of racial profiling but supported the profiling, deportation, and even imprisonment of people the government determined were listening to “radical political speeches.”

Perhaps Rand Paul’s most purely libertarian position is his views on the NSA — Paul supports the complete dismantling of the domestic surveillance apparatus. (He also forcefully opposed renewal of the PATRIOT Act.) But when it came time to vote for a NSA reform plan supported by Democrats and Republicans with similar views, Paul voted against it, arguing it didn’t go far enough. Paul’s vote was criticized by civil libertarians who were banking on his support.

So is Rand Paul, as one supporter told the New York Times, “to the libertarian movement what Pearl Jam is to rock”?

Take it from Rand Paul: “I’m not a libertarian.”

[Irbis]

How is that not being libertarian? They insist on the word in its social meaning, he means its economical meaning. They're two different issues, which is why you sometimes have right wing parties with some bits of left-leaning social program, or left wing parties with some right-leaning points in economic program. Doesn't change their main platform, though, and the article fails to ask itself what he is if not libertarian.

As for economic libertarians being backwards, meh. I can name at least 3 EU liberturd parties that are so fucking backwards in social area they fucking think you can't rape woman if she has a short skirt. And that wimmins should stay in home and LGBTs in closet, if not in coffin. I have never seen libertarianism really combined in any way in both economic and social sphere anywhere outside anarchist parties.

Frankly, if you're progressive and free thinking enough to accept same sex marriages, legalisation of harmless substances and a lot of other left-leaning positions it's very unlikely you will like rabid dog-eat-dog XVIII century robber capitalism liberturds propose so there is no contradiction here. Hell, look at your typical libertarian - usually student or working in some profession like IT that doesn't feel the exploiting squeeze of free markets yet, ergo, people who have no idea how life looks like outside their golden bubble so nothing bursts their ego and selfishness.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the problem is that libertarianism is a word that, in English at least, benefits from the 'aura' of being associated with the idea that the individual has social and political rights to go with their economic rights.

"Libertarian" is a much more politically palatable label than "anarcho-capitalist," or for that matter "fascist who just happens to be buddy-buddy with a lot of investors." So debunking the idea that someone is a 'libertarian' in the sense of that nice palatable label is desirable.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Thing you gotta keep in mind: Libertarians tend to be ideological purists. If you don't stand for everything I think you should be free to do, you aren't a libertarian. Just another fascist/statist/any other buzzword. And it doesn't even matter where this particular libertarian lands on the flavors out there.

I'm going to bullshit how Rand Paul can justify calling himself a libertarian using the most common "philosophy" I see espoused by libertarians that actually think about things for two seconds. The non-aggression axiom.

Abortion: He feels the a zygote is just as human as someone you can talk to. By aborting, you're killing what he views as a person. This is causing harm, this is being aggressive toward another person. So opposition to abortion is perfectly within libertarian when you feel in this manner.

Of gay marriage, he can try and point to all the harm he thinks it would cause. And hell, he's even saying "State's Rights!!!" about it. If there's anything I've seen talking to self-professed libertarians, it's that the state of X has rights that trump a corporation, the corporation trumps individuals, and individuals trump the federal goverment. They don't explicitly say this, but it's pretty damn easy to infer based off what they do say. He can easily try to claim that if Teh Gays get marriage rights then it would impose on all these different people. Places would totally be forced to treat a gay couple like a straight couple, and that's aggression!

I've generally seen libertarians in favor of a strong national defense, so long as that defense is used as a defense, not as a force that starts shit. Same applies to drone strikes. So long as they're only hitting the Evil Guys they're just part of national defense.

A libertarian is allowed to think "Drugs are Bad" without suddenly no longer being a libertarian. He's being a more tactical sort of libertarian, where he institutes slow changes to keep them palatable to the populace at-large.

The comment about "radical political speeches" doesn't have enough attached to determine what he's referring to. Without further info, one can just conclude that he's talking about speeches that include an active and realistic plan to engage in aggressive acts.


I dunno, maybe they're just trying to distance themselves from someone that damn near everyone agrees is a foaming at the mouth lunatic. Or they're purists that cannot abide a difference of opinions on anything relating to the government and what it's allowed to do without going into "No True Scotsman" territory. Wait, it's that one. The sort that went to college on government money but now want the government to stop giving money to people for college.

Libertarian is a meaningless term in politics, these days.

[Grumman]

Some of the points in the OP are valid, some are not.

The most interesting points for me are his about-face on defense spending, and his opposition to same-sex marriage. It sounds like he was goaded into the former by accusations of isolationism, which is itself a good reason to go looking for somebody who won't betray his principles in order to win.

His comments on same-sex marriage are simply stupid. The question of whether support for same-sex marriage might lead to support for polygamy is an interesting one; asking about marriage to animals just demonstrates that you don't understand what a marriage is - marriage is not sex between a man and a woman, it is a contract in which the couple grants each other shared ownership of their property, the right to speak on their behalf, and so on, with the government granting certain rights in turn. There is no real reason why Consenting Adult A and Consenting Adult B should not be allowed to enter that contract just because they have matching sex chromosomes, while marrying a beast doesn't even get off the ground without abolishing the need for the parties to a contract to consent, which is self-evidently stupid even without bringing up animals.

The point about drones sounds like ignorant fearmongering. People hate to admit it, but the government does have the right and the responsibility to control its own borders. I support making it easier for people to enter and live in the country legally, but only for those who are willing to go through the proper channels that ensure they do not bring contraband, criminals or contagious diseases into the country. It does not offend me to use a remote controlled aeroplane to watch the border to make sure that no smugglers are trying to enter the country without going through customs. And as for targeted killings, I support assassination as a tool in a legitimate war. It would have been great if we could have defeated Nazi Germany by killing the architects responsible for their war of aggression without grinding our way through five million Germans to get there. What makes Obama's use of drones immoral is not that it was remotely piloted vehicles that fired the missiles, it was the rules of engagement they operated under.