In Review: 'Taking a Stand' by Rand Paul

By Robert Wenzel

Taking A Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America, the just released book by Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, is going to cause more problems for libertarian-type supporters of this seeker of the 8-year throne.

In one sense, there is little in the book that a careful follower of the candidate won't already know. It is essentially a more detailed version of his stump speeches, written in a very professional style, perhaps with the significant assistance of a Brian McDonald curiously mentioned. without further identification, in the acknowledgements.

That said, when pen is put to paper for a 309-page book, it is difficult to not be a bit clearer on positions and hence the problem for libertarian fan boys of the Senator. They now have a lot more to explain away with regard to Rand's many non-libertarian and occasional beltarian positions.

Rand curiously puts an adjective in front of capitalism, On page 40 his book, he hails "democratic capitalism":

Only in democratic capitalism, when millions of consumers vote daily. can the correct price be determined.

Why not just advocate capitalism? So much for the wonderful and beautiful Liechtenstein. And so much for Hans-Hermann Hoppe's take on monarchies.

In his book, Rand tells us that he wants to keep the Medicare system going (p. 46)

My plan is simple. We could still have a federal Medicare system to pay for our seniors healthcare. Every senior would be covered. No one could be turned down, and it would deliver top care without some of the frustrations people have with the current system.

And it appears that he wants the hand of government to remain in the general healthcare system (p.43)

Legalize and expand tax-free health savings accounts. 

This, of course, would mean that government would play a role in determining what is correct healthcare. which Rand apparently now thinks includes vaccinations. He cheers on Bill Gates vaccination efforts (p.263)

his amazing vaccination crusade in Africa

I hasten to add that to vaccinate or not is a personal decision and that it concerns me when politicians believe  hey need to weigh in on the issue from any perspective at all.

Rand also calls for the audit of the Fed, but stops there and then makes this startling comment about the bankster tool (p. 73)

Is there a chance that the Fed only has our best interests at heart? Sure.

He also brings up the phony inequality "problem" (p.76)

[I]ncome inequality has gotten worse under [Obama's] administration. 

And, he is clearly NOT against drug laws (p. 118)

We need drug sentencing that makes sense. 

We need to get rid of the lopsided penalties of crack cocaine sentencing altogether,

And he is particularly vicious against drug dealers (p. 120)

Don't get me wrong. People who are in prison for harming other people should be kept in prison.

Rand also champions Jack Kemp  enterprise zones "on steroids," but does so without advocating the elimination of minimum wage laws, which means his enterprise zones will result in the economic equivalent of steroid induced shrinking testicles.

The best he does is advocate for not raising the minimum wage, based on the  idea that lower taxes in these zones will give workers more spending money, without addressing the problem of those currently unemployed. (p.159)

Instead of raising the minimum wage...my plan will raise wages for everyone who lives in these zones  by significantly lowering their tax, which will leave more money in their paychecks.

But that is not going to work for those who are marginally productive and can't get jobs in the first place because of the current minimum wage.

Rand is also in favor of moving the pieces around  on the tax board, instead of outright cuts in taxes from the present tax system. And he manages in his tax policy statement to heap hate and envy at the super-rich (p.163)

In my plan everyone pays a fair tax. So what's a fair tax? Well, for starters, we'll eliminate the loopholes that allow the superwealthy to avoid taxes...

His call to limit foreign aid is. well. limited (p.165)

We will cut spending by no longer sending aid to countries that despise and burn our flag.     

And it turns out he is quite the Islamaphobe (p.203)

The whole of Islam has seemingly forgotten its tolerant past.

And, he is not exactly against using muscle in foreign entanglements that we should not be instigating in the first place (p.219)

While my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened...For instance, America must protect the five thousand people serving at the largest American consulate in the world, the one in northern Iraq. 

And, of course, there is this (p.219)

I support destroying ISIS militarily.

And then this (p. 227)

My foreign policy would also include protection of our allies' interests. We should reinforce Israel's Iron Dome protection against missiles, for instance. 

He ends his foreign policy chapter this way (p.231)

I am not an isolationist. I will not forget what is at stake. 

One might ask, what does Rand think is at stake? Is it his march toward the 8-year throne that is at stake, if he isn't pro-war enough? And who said anything about being isolationist? The libertarian position is to avoid foreign entanglements, but to allow global free trade.

And, yes, he is "pro environment" whatever the hell that means. (P.273)

The GOP I see will take a backseat to no one in defending the environment. 

Rand's pro environment stance is certainly not about the libertarian view of moving in the direction of putting waterways in private hands. It's all about government rules and interventions (p.266)

I support the Clean Water Act that says no one can dump pollutants in a navigable body of water. 

Bottom line, on many positions Rand is far from a libertarian, and when he comes close he tends to be a technical beltarian, monkeying with different types of interventions, rather than taking the principled approach and calling for the abolishment of interventions. That's probably why he mentions the beltarian Cato Institute 8 separate time in  his book, but doesn't mention the principled Mises Institute even once.

If you are a libertraian, there is no reason to support this candidate. If you are a libertarian, there is no reason to buy this book, unless, of course. you are willing to close your eyes to a lot.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics