Saturday, June 6, 2015

Libertarians Need to Stand Against Rand, Not With Him

By Taylor Lewis


Senator Rand Paul has finally done it. He has forsaken the liberty movement that put him in office and made him a rising star. I don’t say that lightly. The Kentucky senator is, after all, the son of the great Ron Paul, whom all liberty lovers are feverishly indebted.


When Rand Paul was first sent to Washington, he had his feet on steady ground. He excoriated  the dastardly EPA. He  demanded answers  from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on gun-running to terrorists in Syria. And, of course, he filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as the head of the CIA.


All of that was great. Rand spoke truth to power and didn’t deviate from his principles. Back then, even the hardest of hardcore libertarians was proud to #StandwithRand.


Things, as is their wont, have changed. Since his original filibuster, Rand hasn’t just forgotten liberty - he is whittling it down into Washington-speak. In trying to court mainstream Republicans and D.C. insiders, he has tarnished the brand of libertarianism. And quite frankly, I’m sick of it. It’s time, as libertarians, to detach ourselves from Rand Paul. This isn’t a no-fault breakup either. It’s  him , not us. We stand for freedom for all, while he tries to persuade Leviathan into giving us just a tiny bit of our rights back.


When Rand made the call for 1,000 more FBI officers, any respect I had for the senator went right out the window. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Wenzel, the great purveyor of EconomicPolicyJournal.com  and  Target Liberty . I, too, “ have had it with Rand Paul .” We must stand  against  Rand. No compromise. No sympathy. No quarter to those who threaten the most precious thing of all: human liberty.


Wezen is right when he says Rand crossed a line by calling for FBI thugs. In the heat of his second filibuster, the senator wanted to replace ubiquitous government spying with snoops that would execute warrants individually. Why couldn’t Rand propose an outright end to NSA spying, and no increase in FBI goons? Doesn’t he believe in actual liberty?


I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is a resounding “NO.” Rand has a history of poor decision-making on his quest to be president. He made a  Faustian bargain  in teaming up with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. From there, he has only watered down the message of liberty and non-aggression. He has sucked up to the GOP party consiglieres and  helped them  take control of the Senate. And for what? More dollars lavished upon the already-bloated military-security complex?


What’s more is that Rand  once supported  filling the military’s coffers with more stolen dough! Sure, it was to demonstrate that some Republicans were willing to raise spending without cutting a dime from the budget.  But that doesn’t matter . Display or no display, Rand crossed the line. He deserved to be shun, and shunned hard. The latest misstep is all the more reason to distance ourselves from the senator. If libertarians give an inch, we’re no better than our competitors. There is to be no deviation.


Libertarians have the reputation of being curmudgeons who picks fights and refuse to take sides with anyone. To that, I say: who cares? We’re right, the rest of the political spectrum is dead wrong. To be a libertarian, you must be unafraid in preaching the truth, no matter who it offends. Libertarians aspire to make enemies. We win by speaking the truth, even if the cost is high.


Some libertarians - the beltway kind who only want to nuzzle and play footsie with power - say we’re nitpicking when it comes to Rand. “He’s just nuancing the issues to move more deftly through the campaign,” they aver. I say that’s nonsense. Compared to liberty, everything else comes second. Libertarians must not lose sight of the goal. Political ambition corrupts the mission of true human liberty for all. No one who runs for president can be trusted, especially Dr. Randal Paul. As libertarians, we can’t trust the political system, let alone use it to pursue our ends.


Libertarians have one focus: destroying the state; tearing it out, root and branch, from the ground and doing away with it for good. Our detractors say such a dream is impossible and completely unrealistic. They say that liberty is about more than getting the monkey of government off our back. They usually believe oppression comes in many forms, outside of just physical force. And they also claim that people can live relatively free lives even as government mucks so many things up. I have one word for that kind of thinking: nonsense! We aren’t truly free until we do away with the state entirely. There is no middle ground, or compromise. Anyone who says otherwise  isn’t a libertarian . Period.


That’s exactly where Rand Paul is at - insufficiently libertarian. Just recently, he  introduced  an amendment in the Senate to a military funding bill that would cut waste and costs while making the armed forces more efficient. Unbelievable! What kind of libertarian would propose making government killers more efficient, even if it does cut spending! Once again, Rand shows himself to be a statist masquerading as a libertarian. As Wenzel  noted , “Rand is a man of the state.” Not only does Ron Paul’s son not “hate the state,” he actively tries to wedge his “ libertarianish” philosophy into measures that don’t completely abolish government.


For that apostasy and more, I hereby urge Walter Block, the great economist and philosopher, to withdraw his  endorsement  of Rand Paul.  Dr. Block puts his libertarian credentials at risk by supporting such a squish politician. And I’ll go one step further. I honestly hope Ron Paul - the only true libertarian politician worth celebrating - doesn’t endorse Rand. Family matters aside, Ron shouldn’t sell out by supporting his son. It would be a disservice to liberty - the one thing that really matters in our fight against government bondage.


If Ron Paul is a giant for freedom, then Rand is a mouse. Sure, he has more respect from the mainstream media and Republican voters. But what does that mean in terms of advancing freedom? Not a whole lot if you have to ignore the non-aggression principle to get on Hannity at 10 P.M. That’s why libertarians must forget about Rand and get back to the business of unrelentingly arguing against the state. On the internet, in books, on message boards, on social media, in bars, in restaurants, in any social occasion whatsoever, liberty must be advanced through dogmatic argumentation. We can’t concern ourselves with being too officious. This is liberty we’re talking about! Nothing else matters in our quest for a free society!

Forget what the haters say. If acting alone, isolated away from polite company is how libertarians must achieve victory, then so be it. Our mission is far too sacred to be daunted by public perception. We must inspire people even if they hate our guts for being too strident in our cause. Let’s not stand with Rand. Let’s stand with Wenzel, even if it means standing by ourselves.


Taylor Lewis is a hardcore Rothbardian libertarian who lives in Virginia.

5 comments:

  1. The IQ in a room suffers the second this narcissistic lightweight walks over the threshold, expecting adoring sycophantic followers to fawn over his every pronouncement. I honestly expected this half-baked political dilettante to amount to nothing from the day he won the election, but I was stunned at how hard media control agents like Alex Jones pushed a political scion who was more vapid than my wildest dreams. In my opinion, we must tar this black-hearted traitor to liberty with unrelenting scorn, and derision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even if Rand Paul is the best of all the terrible candidates, let's remind ourselves that we do not have to vote for any candidate if all of them are anti-liberty. I cannot, and will not, vote for any candidate that will not promise an immediate pardon for Edward Snowden, maximum efforts to end the Fed, and to close down all US foreign military bases. If there is no such candidate, so be it. Remember that Rand Paul recently declared Snowden to be a criminal. That's a show stopper for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Libertarians have one focus: destroying the state; tearing it out, root and branch, from the ground and doing away with it for good. Our detractors say such a dream is impossible and completely unrealistic. They say that liberty is about more than getting the monkey of government off our back. They usually believe oppression comes in many forms, outside of just physical force. And they also claim that people can live relatively free lives even as government mucks so many things up. I have one word for that kind of thinking: nonsense! We aren’t truly free until we do away with the state entirely. There is no middle ground, or compromise. Anyone who says otherwise isn’t a libertarian. Period."

    That goes down with the satisfaction of an 8-course dinner with wine. More pithy words have rarely been said.

    "Our mission is far too scared to be daunted by public perception. We must inspire people even if they hate our guts for being too strident in our cause." Amen. In contrast to a recent separate topic where Jeff Deist criticized certain state-defying actions because they "have always been a losing proposition with the general public...[and are] not likely to push the public in our direction." Perhaps Deist should consider what Taylor Lewis says here on the matter of pandering to public sentiment when choosing endorsements.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Our mission is far too scared to be daunted ..."

    I think you meant sacred.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All we need is a Misesian Political Party to get on record predicting the crash. If it's as bad as everyone thinks, we will be swept into power as prophets.

    ReplyDelete