The Rand Paul stuff has exposed the ideological conflicts of libertarianism and why it's not popular

People sometimes need to be reminded why there are two parties and why they are shaped the way they are. People figured out a long time ago that true libertarian ideologies (and others) are not...feasible! They force people to support unsupportable values. Politically motivated people with these views knew that they couldn't get elected if they stuck with their parties, so they grouped together and became the two major parties. At least in the two parties some of the ideologues would sneak through.

So now some libertarian has worked his way through the political system with a shot to become a Senator! That's pretty uncommon. Voters are going to be forced to make decisions on whether they really support a person that believes their handicapped child should lose all services, or their friends and neighbors should be discriminated against as long as it's not the government doing it, or if their parents should immediately lose medicare and social security.

I just can't imagine the state of Kentucky putting a person with these views in the Senate.

FTFY.

the minimum wage? That should provide enough impetus to vote Democratic in November. I hope it's an issue.

He said basically that if you raise the minimum wage it causes unemployment.

has more followers than one might imagine. As a party, they
can only go so far. In elections they vote Republican.

There are swaths of Libertarians through N.C. Kentucky
some in Texas. The West has Libertarian Values. Barry
Goldwater was very Libertarian. Dick Armey also.

Then people decide they like paved roads, police departments, public pools, etc.

He thinks he is, but he isn't.

He'd be pro-choice. And I think that's it.

It's enough for me to regard him as a right-wing authoritarian.

That's pretty major hypocrisy.

He's willing to pick and choose from the various wingnut belief baskets whether it adds up to anything like a coherent political philosophy or not. So he's pro-segregation, anti-choice, anti-tax, anti-government services, anti-regulation, pro-drug-prohibition, and so on, right down the line. He sounds like every Republican in the country circa 1965.

From http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

April 21, 2004 | ISSUE 40•16


CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.





Why any one would adopt, promote, or vote for someone with such a simplistic worldview is beyond me.

selfishness.

That's all libertarianism is. Codified, formalized, rationalized selfishness. It's a better-sounding word than selfishness so cosmetically it'll go down easier and you'll be able to smooth-talk more people into buying it. It's also the refuge of scoundrels too chickenshit to admit they're republi-CON. This is your republi-CON-ism on drugs.

I think he might be more a dominionist who has adapted some libertarian language.

Bryant

Throw the word "Freedom" around more than Mel Gibson does, toss in a few more buzzwords like "self determination" and "Free Markets", then mix it all up to fool people into believing that it isn't the same old Divine Rights of Kings bullshit that has enslaved the world's people for 60 centuries, and you hopefully get 60 more centuries of the same.

:hug:

always gives them little stiffies in an almost-Pavlovian manner!

+1

Somebody didn't tell them they're the bad guys.

They look good on paper, but just don't work in practice.

Communism looks good on paper. Libertarianism, even in its academic form, is a crackpot utopian theory. The popular forms of it are beyond crackpot and attract the mentally deficient.

consequences of "small government." Who gets screwed?, employees and our environment, to name two.


I hope the Democrats do not take this guy lightly and just focus on the issue that came up with Maddow. There
is a real opportunity to engage these voters and have them support Democrats.

problems as he causes us. He should vote against every defense bill, patriot act, etc. that the republicans would normally support.

defending our defense budget with Rand, as well as defending the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Sestak needs to be prepared on all fronts imo, but the opportunity exists to sway voters.

to have a libertarian in the congress/senate. if they were consistent in their principles, that is. i could see such a politician being a useful ally to the "left" (meaning bernie sanders) in many cases.

but to be PRO-LIFE and a libertarian? what's next, pro-drug war? i know there's plenty of fools in KY (proof: Bunning, McConnell, ridge runners), but they can't be this gullible.

I just noticed this from CNN, Conway and his take on Rand so far:

snip* In a Thursday interview with Blitzer, Paul said the nation's segregationist past is a "stain on our history," and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act had he been in the senate in 1964.

But his opponent said that does not douse the firestorm surrounding Paul.


Conway told Blitzer, "Rand Paul claims to be running as an outsider. But on this issue here in the last 24 hours on your show, he pulled the good old Washington flip-flop."

"...he's clearly backpedaling because he's seen the national firestorm that he has caused," Conway added. "What's clear from what he has said repeatedly, up until your program yesterday, is…he's rejecting a fundamental provision in the Civil Rights Act that says that if - if you're providing a public accommodation, if you're a restaurant or you're a hotel, that you can't discriminate based on race."

Conway is also seizing on Paul's views about the American with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation and other areas.

In the Thursday interview, Paul told Blitzer he was not sure if he would have voted for that act, saying he is in favor of accommodating people with disabilities in the workplace.

But Paul, and eye surgeon and first time political candidate, added, "...let's say you have a local office and you have a two-story office, and one of your workers is handicapped. Should you not be allowed maybe to offer them an office on the first floor? Or should you be forced to put in a $100,000 elevator? I think it sounds like common sense that you should be allowed to give them a first floor office."

Conway told Blitzer, "I mean what's he saying to people with disabilities - that just take your office on the first floor? "If you have colleagues with whom you need to interact upstairs, you, you can't go up there? We don't need to put a ramp or an elevator? What's he saying to the veterans that are coming back from these two wars and are disabled?"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/21/conway-on-rand-paul-hes-clearly-backpedaling/?fbid=07WL0Sff4Lp

We've just been very lucky so far. The real problem is we have no viable third party and we never will.

If one of the two parties didn't suck, we'd be in decent shape. If we had a viable third party, it would suck, too--and it would probably be more likely to be a far-right splinter party like the teabagger thing than any kind of left-libertarian green party offshoot. The real problem is unfettered corporate influence-buying in the political system, about to get much, much worse.

With more, you might get some diversity in people and maybe a few couldn't be bought off. I agree it is a longshot, but hey I'm ready to take anything right about now.

any party with any power will be instantly bought off. Doesn't matter if there are two parties or twenty.

ban all lobbyists!

Got a link? And it's not just lobbyists--it's the whole structure of campaign finance. It's basically legalized graft.

In our time machine, if only we knew back then they would destroy America.

Every time I think about what a 3-4 party system would be like I see it all eventually going back to two parties. There would be so much deal making going on that I don't think it would hold up.

you simply can't see the world as if freedom/oppression was the only dimension.

virtually anything one person does in the name of freedom can have an impact on others. the question always is, what is the nature of the impact on others before the government should step in an stop things. simply saying that i should be able to do it because otherwise i'm being oppressed is an incredibly narcissistic outlook on society.

rand paul apparently believes that the government should not protect black people if bigots want to get blacks out of their restaurants, but it should protect fetuses from rape victims is they want to get fetuses out of their uteruses.

As Rome fell these Caesars became possible. I look for authoritarianism to increase as these libertarians gain popularity. If history holds, that is.

All hail the Medici gang. All hail the UNIPARTY! And don't forget to swear fealty!1!

They want the freedom to discriminate, but they wouldn't want to be discriminated against themselves. They want no regulation but they fantasize that we can be safe without it.

They don't get human nature.

If it had been a shitty album, consigned to the dustbin of "Who?", then we probably wouldn't have gotten a bunch of rock fans with good taste to eat up a fairy tale ideology from a potboiler author who had questionable talent, and we would not be in the position of trying to deprogram these people.

Neil Pert's biggest failure is that he worshipped a mediocre talent who was full of shit, and doesn't realize that he's infinitely more talented than Ayn Rand ever hoped to be.

but people who read Ayn Rand are intellectual (and therefore much fewer in number) in comparison to those who listen to Limbaugh.

But her solutions are so easy, that when they have a get together to debate the merits of objectivism, it's usually self satisfying conclusions drawn without much effort and mental masturbation.

And I was talking about the rock band Rush, not the pig man. Their drummer (and chief song writer) is, or was an objectivist.

as a party.

They make sense to the general American public for about 10 seconds then become a complete turnoff to both sides. They've never been taken seriously enough to be considered a threat anywhere and the ONLY reason why the Libertarians are doing so well with Republicans right now is because of the complete and utter void in conservative leadership.

other than deregulation. If they're honest, that is.

They will forever be relegated to being a minor party, because you cannot give yourself to a cause if that cause is the defense of selfishness.