How does Rand Paul get elected president?

[rogerashton]

The simple answer seems to be that he runs like hell from his dad's ideas in the primaries, and then makes it seem as if that never happened in the general election. Not easy.

Thing is, "libertarianism" does have a logic. Well, as Gore Vidal said years ago, "libertarian" is the wrong word -- they should be called "propertarians," and I will use that term. And it is possible to be rigorously logical and dead wrong at the same time. In fact it is pretty common. Nevertheless --

The propertarian logic can be expressed (I think) in three premisses:

1) People who own economic resources (especially property) should be allowed to dispose of it as they please, so long as they do so individually.

2) Subject to 1, people should be able to make "lifestyle" decisions as they choose, as long as others are not materially harmed.

3) The military and police powers of government should be limited to protecting those freedoms.

Now, 1) leads to Ron Paul's partial opposition to the Civil Rights law -- logical, but also politically convenient. Also, it does not allow for the freedom of workers to form unions. They are only free to act as individuals. Again, logical, but also politically convenient. Some propertarians I know go so far as to oppose corporations as collectivist bodies, and while that is logical, it is not politically convenient, so many propertarians compromise on that point.

As to immigration, a consistent propertarian opposes any limitations on immigration, since by 1) a person should be free to sell their labor where-ever they may wish. Clearly, this is a deal-killer to the Tea Partisans. Further, 2) is a deal-killer to social conservatives. Paul may be able to rationalize "religious freedom" laws as property rights -- as his dad rationalized segregated lunch counters -- but that probably won't go far enough to draw the social conservatives. Last, 3) is a deal-killer to neocons. If he runs as a propertarian, what Republicans will vote for him that didn't vote for his father? If he doesn't, what does he have to offer to independents in the general election?

Here's the answer. He runs as the stupid candidate. After all, it takes some intelligence to understand propertarianism -- in the primaries he runs as a believer in the propertarian logic, but too stupid really to apply it -- and then, in the general election, he gets smart.

I think he can pull off the first part of this plan. Not sure about the second.

[99Forever]

1. He doesn't. eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Libertarianism fails because there are so few self directed acts

Libertarianism fails because there are so few truly self directed acts so rules have to be made and laws have to be passed in proportion the effect of other directed acts on others...

And neither him or his dad were true libertarians but 10th Amendment absolutists...I don't give a rat's ass if the government that is restricting a right I hold dear is a federal, state, or local one.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. Over my dead body.

[onehandle]

4. Libertarian is indeed the wrong word for today's 'Libertarians.'

'Self-important selfish racist gun humping Republican white male assholes' is what these guys are.

Not sure how to add the 'ism' suffix to that.

[jamzrockz]

5. Ron Paul is not exactly against union formation

Their argument for pure individual rights sorta makes sense if you believe everybody is equal. I have read arguments from libertarians saying that the individual is allowed to discriminated based on race, religion and .... but business are not allowed to, it seems unfair unless you believe businesses and customers are on equal playing field. It sounds weird but that's where that line of thinking takes you

The video below is Paul senior talking about his views on union and he doesn't sound like he is against unions even though he favors laws that take power away from unions.

To them its purely about liberty to work for less, to be a serf, to be taken advantage, just as long as the individual chooses consequences be damned.

Personally, I favor a lot of individual rights just as long as it protects the individual from exploitation. So slavery, right to work, poor selling organs to the rich etc should all be outlawed no matter how much the individual wants it.

[rogerashton]

6. There is an interesting contrast with anarchism.

The American Individualist Anarchists (anyway Benjamin Tucker, a prominent spokesman for them) held that workers should be free to form unions and any government interference with that right (such as right-to-work-for-nothing laws) should be resisted by individualists.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001547/secG5.html

[Major Nikon]

7. Any looneytarian that is simultaneously FOR corporations and AGAINST unions is a fucking hypocrite

Not to mention anyone who thinks a neo-confederate is a champion of liberty is a fucking idiot.

[rogerashton]

9. I certainly agree with the logic of your reply

but, pleasant as name-calling may make one feel, it doesn't do much for strategic thinking.

Well, there are a few looneytarians who do agree with your point and are anticorporate. Not many, I think, but some. One was a student of mine. But I really don't think the others are hypocrites. Wrong, yes.

Anyway, hypocrisy gets an undeserved bad press. Most politicians, left, right, or center, are hypocrites, and that includes some of the best of them.

[Major Nikon]

11. Looneytarians and libertarians are two different things

Libertarians are people who place great emphasis on liberties, both personal and civil.

Looneytarians are people who think personal liberties always trump everything else, including such cases when personal liberties of some (the most fortunate), take precedent over civil liberties.

So I'm just not going to call Looneytarians, libertarians, and that's my word for differentiating between the two. If that's namecalling and demonstrates a lack of strategic thinking, then well so be it, but I'm not going to play nice with people who stand up and claim such bullshit like the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery and then try to claim they are all about the liberty, because they just ain't. People who promote that level of bigoted idiocy deserve contempt as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

[rogerashton]

13. Well, considering that we agree on so much,

it is odd (but very routine on DU!) that we seem to be arguing.

In the OP, I made the point that "libertarian" is not the right word for them. I used Gore Vidal's phrase "propertarian." I do think that's a bit less expressive of contempt than "looneytarian," though, as I recall, Vidal had an ability to express contempt in other ways. And did.

I do think, though, that you are putting two different things together in your last paragraph. The propertarians/looneytarians I know are not neoconfederates, and the neoconfederates I know -- well, knew, a few years back -- were certainly not libertarian and didn't claim that they were.

(I have been living in damnyankeeland for a few decades now.)

[Major Nikon]

14. I'm not sure we are arguing at all

Other than the best way to show contempt for shitstains. Rand Paul most certainly is a neo-confederate, and a looneytarian, which seems to be relevant to the OP.

[DrDan]

8. A post several years ago right here - "no way a dem can lose to this guy"

Not the best prognosticators here

[rogerashton]

10. I'm old. I can remember

when I didn't believe that Republicans would turn out and vote for a divorced actor who had played second banana to a chimp.

[DrDan]

12. I know - I remember as well

[hifiguy]

15. Create his own universe and declare himself

president of the void? It ain't gonna happen in this world.

[rogerashton]

16. A long shot, maybe,

but see post # 10.

[Gothmog]

17. The GOP donor class hates Rand Paul and his daddy

The RNC and the GOP donor class will make sure that Rand is not the nominee

[rogerashton]

18. The donor class are moved by material interest, not emotion.

The propertarian positions on immigration and same-sex marriage are in their interest. (Notice how swiftly they switched on same-sex marriage when their interest was affected.) On the other hand, they know quite well that they need a candidate who can win. If they thought he could win, they would switch in a flash.

Now, I don't think that is likely. But, as I noted in an earlier post, I didn't think Reagan would be elected, either.

[winter is coming]

19. He moves to a deserted island?

That's the only viable scenario I see.

[JI7]

22. if he can get media to prop him

The way they did with Bush.while constantly attacking the dem over anything like gore and earth tones.