Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

There is no Messiah of libertarianism. We have Jefferson, Spooner, Mises, Ron Paul, etc. There is no monolith or consensus of thought other than the NAP.

Explain these false assumptions in your own words.

Libertarianism in the United States promotes everything from minarchy to anarchy. You mean, the Libertarian Party does not.

He is a libertarian by the standards of the Libertarian party, not by the standards of voluntaryist libertarians.

It certainly is, that is why people of the two parties are so rabid about taking the presidency so they can advance their agendas through the court.

It is not impartial.

I'm not quoting you further because you don't understand the original purpose of the federal government or 10th amendment.

The central government was not there to write laws regarding individuals but states. It was to create treaties, establish postal roads, defend shores, etc. This is evident in the actions of our earliest presidents and legislators, in fact, until around the time of Lincoln our leaders referred to their home state as their "country". That is how autonomous states were until Lincoln went nuts.

You may not like this, but it is what it is. You may try reading this:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/category/nullification/

It helps to specialize in a particular field and become an SME instead of a jack of all intellectual trades incapable of mastering any particular constitutional subject.

As to gay rights or minority rights, they only didn't have rights because of the federal government meddling in individual, natural, inalienable rights.

If the central government and state governments abstained from micromanaging contracts none of the angst would have happened. Gays and mixed racial couples would have entered into free contracts with each other just like heterosexuals did.

 

Dwight David Eisenhower was an egregiously underrated President, imho, easily the best the GOP produced in the second half of the 20th century.

With the Party currently confirming Yeats's commentary that it is the worst that are full of passionate intensity, they could elevate themselves by recalling Ike's enduring verity:

“People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters. ”​

 

It does not cause physical injury and emotional hurt is subjective and based upon someone's inability to control their thoughts and discipline their reaction.

As RuPaul said, words are words and only have the power you place on them.

You can't cure a social ill with a law. I defer to abortion and drug use as examples. Blacks or minorities that are given jobs to meet quotas are now unknowingly working where they are not wanted, for people that are racist. Where is the gain in that?

Expose racism, expose companies to their ignorance and bigotry and you will be better able to eradicate this problem through the pressure of public censure and the marketplace.

Hence the foolishness of thinking the government can control this.

Apples to oranges.

The SPLC is not impartial and they are extremist whackjobs.

- - - Updated - - -

Compromise only works if you're not about to go over the waterfall. When you're approaching it there is no compromise, you have to paddle hard in the opposite direction.

 

Desperation may well pertain for those who imagine themselves about to go over the Reichenbach, and they are welcome to flail about in an hysterical frenzy - as long as they don't cling.

 

It does if it leads to actions such as discrimination in employment. "Hate Speech" results in actions that violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

 

So where are the "conservative" or "libertarian" organizations that are willing to take on this task of identifying hate groups and anti-government organizations that are full of "whackjobs" in America?

It isn't the SPLC that's full of "whackjobs" but instead it's the organizations the SPLC identifies that are full of whackjobs.

Of course those that condemn the SPLC the most are typically the whackjob members of the organizations identifed. The more a person complains about the SPLC the more probable the chances are that they're a member of one of these radical groups full of whackjob members. ROFLMAO

 

I don't know about you but a SCOTUS that allows for an anal search for routine traffic stops (Florence 2012), a POTUS that has assassination lists and has killed 4 Americans without due process of law, a Congress that approved indefinite detention, total surveillance, and "sneak and peak" are all pretty scary things to me.

Gitmo, torture, gun walking, change in definition of "shelter in place" from natural disaster to "criminal on the loose", molestation of children at airports, jailing of vets for posting song lyrics...these things are not the testament of a free state.

Soooo...that said, traffic your blindfolds and earplugs elsewhere. I'm not listening anymore. As to your "Godwin", allow me to remind you that the Nazi's didn't start with camps and trains, they started with spying, lying, corruption, and propaganda.

 

Why would I need to identify anyone other than the individual hater in front of me?

There can be more than one group of whackjobs. Often people when obsessed become what they despise. You should be careful of that.

Are you the same Shiva from before? You didn't use to traffic in logical fallacies.

 

You have no right to be employed. You have the right to seek employment, start a business, etc.

Tell me, "libertarian", why do you feel that the individuals who invested in, works/worked at, utilized their innovation and labor should be forced to hire anyone?

Why can't I, as a business owner, decide how I want to use my own labor, money, etc.?

Why is your right to be employed more important than my right to use my property the way I want?

Explain this as a "libertarian".

...because a real libertarian would say that force should never be used and that individuals have a right to seek employment elsewhere or start their own business. Individuals also have a right to call for others to protest and not spend their money, time, property there.

 

Actually, the Nazis started with a radical vision of transforming their society into what they deemed a superior one.

Some folks inevitably panic, whilst others endeavour, as ever, to confront problems in a civil manner and continue to progress. "Democracy is never a final achievement. It is a call to an untiring effort." JFK

 

Because all rights are circumscribed. You have voluntarily chosen to conduct your business within the accommodating structure of society, taking advantage of the atmosphere, order, and infrastructure it has created and maintains for you that are conducive to such private initiatives, and because you chose to deal in the money it issues.

Responsibilities come with the benefits you thereby derive.



.



.

 

This thread is supposed to be about Rand Paul so I'll close with one statement about the SPLC so we can return to that. I've looked at numerous groups identified as "hate groups" by the SPLC and everyone of them met the criteria of a hate group. While I haven't reviewed all of those groups identified by the SPLC I haven't in the course of my research found one that didn't belong.

I have found a few, like the National Organization of Marriage (NOM), that I would actually add to the SPLC list because of their original preamble to their marriage pledge implying that a black child was better off being born as a slave. I guess that didn't meet the criteria used by the SPLC in establishing NOM as a hate group.

Now back to Rand Paul...........

 

Society also includes the taxes of the business owner, ergo this is a false argument. For not only did he/she put their time, money, and labor into the startup of the business but paid into the income tax of the state.

I don't believe that public employment should discriminate. For example, I have no problems with the federal government having EEO policies.

When you buy into the benefits with your involuntary tax and tax rate that you have no say in you're not getting a free ride. When I don't pay taxes at all then we'll talk.

 

You realize that this is subjective and that I would have to respect your qualifications as an SME to care.

What are your qualifications to judge hate groups and how do you define hate?

So if you have an opinion that is not nice you're a dangerous hate group person that should be turned into the government instead of just confronted by your neighbors?

Nice.

Good.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. As do progressives. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

You cannot escape your responsibilities to the society upon which your personal success depends merely by paying off the government.

Taxes are not the equivalent of a slave buying his freedom from a master. Unless you choose to abscond from America, you enjoy privileges and no pay-off will get yot a free ride and exempt you from your mutual commitment to fellow Americans.


.

 

You and I were having a rather pleasant discussion about Sen. Paul, until you decided to ignore my counters in favor of the SPLC discussion with Ms. ZM.

 

No one is being forced to hire any person and hasn't been by any laws in the United States including Affirmative Action. Many complain about "Affirmative Action" but I've been unable to find a single federal lawsuit based upon any government contractor's noncompliance with the AA guidelines. Enterprises not working on government contracts or with fewer than 50 employees (i.e. virtually all of the private sector jobs) are unaffected by Affirmative Action completely.

Everyone is entitled to equality of opportunity in both employment and enterprised. Invidous discrimination serves no interest of the enterpise and denies equality of opportunity for the individual just like unfair business practices employed by monopolies denies equality of opportunity to small enterprise.

Why are there those that oppose equality of opportunity for individuals and enterprise in the United States?

 

Sorry about that so let me return to the point.

Rand Paul is a typical crony capitalist, opponent of the Inalienable Rights of the Person, and anti-tax extremist that isn't for a balanced budget (inspite of his BS to the contrary) and is associated with the Tea Party movement that, while having it's 15 minutes of fame, has now lost most of it's support by rank and file Republicans. He has virtually no chance of ever being a serious presidential contender IMHO.

 

Total BS. Seriously.

 

Nice unsupported opinion while I'm willing to document everything I'v said so which once shall we start with?

1, Rand Paul supports crony capitalism.
2. Rand Paul opposes the Inalienable Rights of the Person.
3. Rand Paul is an anti-tax exremist unwilling to balance the US budget.
4. Rant Paul is a "tea party Republican" which has lost the support of traditional Republicans.

Obviously my conclusion that Rand Paul never has a chance of being a serious presidential contender is based upon these four issues so which one of the above should I address first because I can document each and every one of those statements as being true.

 

Why should I bother? You've proven that you get your Libertarian definitions out of the Progressive Cracker Jack box.

1. Crony Capitalism

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.o...crony-capitalism-defends-profitable-business/


Rand Paul Identifies More Crony Capitalism, Defends Profitable Business
By Nick Sorrentino on April 3, 2012

I am so thankful that we have Rand Paul in the Senate. He, like his dad, appears committed to telling the truth right to Washington DC’s face. He fought the establishment in his own party in 2010 and won which gives him freedom unlike any other Senator.

So, he is given to occasional (actually pretty regular) explosions of truth and sound thinking from the Senate floor, which is fun.

Last week for instance he called for a flat corporate tax of 17%. Sounds good to me.

He also proposed taking the $30 billion currently going to the administration’s DOE “green graft” program and instead putting $15 billion toward lowering the debt, and then taking the other $15 billion and putting it toward fixing bridges.

$15 billion for bridges seems like too much to me but Rand is more of a moderate than I am. He’s being politically pragmatic. Of course his proposals will likely never see the light of day in the Senate as pragmatic as they are.

As I listen to Paul speak from the floor I smile. It is nice to hear some sense coming from someone up there. It has been a very long time. But I have to wonder what his colleagues think of him, especially the more liberal Democrats. They and the President must think the Pauls are from outer space.

[video=youtube;GJ3bs6jo0xM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ3bs6jo0xM&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Not outer space Mr.President. The future.

Actually, here are a list of articles on him by an extremely scrupulous anti-crony capitalist site.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/tag/rand-paul/

Here is there credentials: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/who-we-are/

If you find instances, I will cross reference them because his votes may have been for other reasons.

2. Inalienable Rights of the Person...this is where I don't even feel like dealing with you because he supports them more than any person in the Congress or Washington. Whatever your definition is, it isn't libertarian, so I'll say that no, he's not a progressive and doesn't have progressive tendencies to want to make everyone play nice in the sandbox together, but that is because of his libertarian belief that force is immoral and he will also not use force against individuals in any way. And with this government that's really all I want.

3. Yes, he is anti-tax because it uses the government's monopoly on force to steal from people. I noticed you only mention anti-tax and forget spending. A balanced budget also means that spending must lower which is what he is for--reducing the size of government. If you lower taxes, then you lower spending...there, balance!
4. Tea Partiers lost among Republicans? Um, you don't really keep up with this stuff do you?

 

Romney was for flip-flopping before he was against it.

 

The one thing keeping Rand Paul viable as a candidate is his drug legalization stance. He has good numbers among young people, and it's all because of that. The kids simply don't care about the philosophy of libertarianism.

That leaves Rand Paul in an interesting position. He has to hope no progress gets made on the drug legalization front. If there is too much progress, Rand Paul becomes nothing special and loses much of his base.

 

As I mentioned I'll address one issue at a time and we'll start with #1.

Rand Paul gives lip-service to opposing crony capitalism but, in fact, actually supports it based upon his position on the issues. First let's address the common definition of crony capitalism.

Rand Paul, on the issues, made the following commitment:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

The "capital gains taxes" provide favorable tax treatment by government for those predominately to wealthy individiual that areoverwhelming investing in the secondary stock market where they are taxed at a much lower rate on their income than working Americans. Contrary to public opinion transactions in the secondary stock market does not fund enterprise as none of the money goes to any enterprise. It creates no actual wealth in America and, except for stockbrokers, provides no jobs.

We can exemplify how much "favoritism" the capital gains taxe code gives to wealthy investors based upon the following recent article in Forbes magazine.

$200,000 in gross income and a total federal tax bill of $17. This person has no actual overhead expenses and doesn't have any employees and doesn't fund any enterprises creating jobs but because to the tax loopholes related to capital gains only pays $17. [/quote]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/baldwin/2013/06/05/how-retirees-pay-zero-taxes/?partner=yahoomag

A small business owner with only a net income of only $100,000 on the business will pay over $37,000 in taxes related to the business and they're actually creating wealth and may have several employess that are also paying taxes. Included in this $37,000 in taxes is $15,000 in self-employment taxes alone that the small business owner pays regardless of any personal tax deduction that could reduce their overall tax bill. Even if the individual was able to write of all $100,000 based upon personal tax deductions they would still pay the $15,000 in self-employment taxes related to their business.

Using just these two examples, and only limited to the self-employment tax obligation, the small business owner is paying over 880-times the tax rate of someone with double the income.

The simple fact that our tax laws impose different tax rates on "earned income" (that creates the wealth of American) and "unearned income" (that produces no wealth in American) is a reflection of crony capitalism. Those with "unearned income" that overwhelmingly represents the wealthy in American pay only a small fraction of the taxes on income when compared to those with "earned income" that overwhelmingly represents the vast majority of Americans is a reflection of "crony capitalism" that Rand Paul supports.

The only way to remove favoritism in our tax codes is to impose the same tax burden relative to income for ALL Americans. A dollar of income is a dollar of income regardless of source (earned or unearned) and regardless of the entity receiving the income (i.e. the individual or a corporate). Playing "favoritism" in our tax codes is "crony capitalism" in America.

I can certainly provide more examples of Rand Paul supporting crony capitalism in America but the disparity in taxation and favoritism for the wealthy based upon the Capital Gains tax loophole that overwhelmingly provides highly favorable tax treatment for wealthy high income individuals is the most glaring example. The Capital Gains tax is crony capitalism in action.

 

You're still not showing me the personal relationships, Shiva.