As You Get to Know Rand Paul, Will You Like Him?

Rand Paul’s stance on immigration seems to be to:
1. Secure the Border first
2. Then, provide some sort of amnesty to the 11 + million illegals in America

While there is as much anger at government as there ever has been in the country, does that make an angry voter libertarian? If, as a GOP voter, one professes mistrust and hostility towards so-called RINO’s, do you believe in true Libertarianism? Immigration, and specifically amnesty or immigration reform of one kind or another, is a flashpoint. It will help answer the question of who is actually a libertarian espousing maximum freedom and limited government, and who is a very frustrated conservative who feels that amnesty undercuts the rule and law and even the constitution itself.

The non-violence tenet of libertarianism - or the non-aggression axiom in the words of Rand's father Ron - presents a fundamental problem for conservatives. It states that no one - including the state - may initiate force against another. Very rational. Very nice. Very very very unrealistic given a minimum glance at human history, ancient and current. Have all the wars and violence and bloodshed been merely a case of one authority or another duping us to kill each other? If one truly believes in the non-aggression axiom, then how do you respond to aggression? Rand seems to be hedging his bets a little with his call for Trust but Verify and a border fence, but isn't that the state initiating forceful action against peace-loving migrants who rationally choose to live in the world's most innovative economy?

Where does the rule of law fit within a libertarian perspective? Here libertarianism seems to fracture and divide into quasi-anarchists - which is perhaps the conservative view of what happens when absolute libertarianism rules - and those libertarians more inclined to support some form of central authority, like Rand Paul. Conservative anger has as much to do with what the government does (badly) as it has to do with how much government there is (way too much for conservatives but even more so for libertarians). So will conservatives listen to Rand Paul? They already are. Will they like him in increasing numbers? A more doubtful proposition, but perhaps not impossible depending on how flexible Rand's view of libertarianism is. Rand will have a chance to speak to a lot of listening people over the next few months. How he says what he believes in will be vital for voters - especially conservative voters but also moderates - to decide if they can get to like Rand Paul. He will have some talking to do. And a campaign speech or a debate is not a filibuster.

Posted by Keeley at June 16, 2015 9:06 PM
Comments
Comment #396000
The non-violence tenet of libertarianism - or the non-aggression axiom in the words of Rand’s father Ron - presents a fundamental problem for conservatives.

yes, it does. Since Conservatives have no problem at all initiating force against others…

It states that no one - including the state - may initiate force against another.

no, it doesn’t.

The *ONLY* reason for the state is to initiate force against another. There is no other reason for it.

What it does say is that we must accept that and only use that power WHEN NECESSARY to protect others from having force initiated against them. And not willy nilly to solve every perceived problem that we encounter.

“The Non-Aggression Principle – also called the Non-Aggression Axiom – is the idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force against others.”

The real problem is that too many conservatives and liberals just either don’t understand libertarianism or they purposefully mis-state what it means to dissuade people from looking into it. (I’m looking at you Salon and your weekly anti-libertarian diatribes that are more fiction than Harry Potter novels).

FYI, Rand Paul is *NOT* a libertarian. Having libertarian leanings and being a libertarian are two different things. Again, attempts to misrepresent in order to bash…

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 19, 2015 11:19 PM
Comment #410211

Applying for an unsecured business advance is exceptionally straightforward. The application procedure is similarly snappier and bother free than a customary bank credit. You should top off an application frame and have a charge card processor account associated with the specific bank to whom you are applying for the credit.

Posted by: auto title loans at November 18, 2016 1:15 AM
Comment #410299

There are no exact figures on the measure of individuals that get turned down for a home loan from a high road moneylender, however it is generally evaluated that it is around 1 in 5. For the most part this is because of minor misjudging and can frequently be settled. Be that as it may, even after this it is evaluated that one in eight individuals won’t have the capacity to get a standard home loan and need to go to an expert moneylender.

Posted by: check cashing at November 19, 2016 1:37 PM
Comment #410320

There are many motivations to solidify your obligations into a solitary credit. The most clear reason is to profit by lower loan fees or an altered financing cost. For instance on the off chance that you have one or a few credits with an especially high financing cost, you can pay them off with a solitary advance that has a lower loan cost and accordingly diminish the general sum you will pay.

Posted by: Cash Advance at November 20, 2016 1:37 AM
Post a comment