Let’s Lynch for the Right Reasons At Least
Holy cow, the people on FB and the blogosphere in general are going absolutely nuts over Rand Paul killing all those Girl Scouts with a 5 iron. Ha ha not really, all he did was endorse Mitt Romney. But the reaction was about the same.
I like to think of myself as the little angel–OK perhaps the little Buddha–who sits on the right shoulder of the libertarian movement. No matter what the situation, I want to whisper, “Are you sure?” before we lynch someone.
For example, I don’t think Roderick Long’s post, entitled “It Usually Ends With Rand Paul,” makes any sense:
So Rand Paul has endorsed Romney. Despite the fact that Ron Paul is still running. And despite the fact that Gary Johnson is running. I guess he’s an ambitious man.
I submit that the middle two sentences make no sense whatsoever. Before Rand’s announcement, Ron Paul himself said he wasn’t going to be the nominee (and by extension, the next President of the United States), and nobody thinks Gary Johnson has a shot at the White House.
So what does someone being in the race have to do with his eligibility for nomination? E.g. let’s say Rand Paul had endorsed Gary Johnson. Why couldn’t Roderick say, “What?!! Are you nuts?!! Johnson isn’t going to win. If you’re going to throw your endorsement away on principle, then at least pick someone really pure and versed in libertarian theory, not a former governor who apparently doesn’t live at the library.”
To be clear, my point is this: I think Roderick’s post would have made a lot more sense if he just said, “Rand should have kept his mouth shut.” But to instead say he should have endorsed his dad–when everybody knows Rand would have preferred his dad won–or a guy who has no shot and isn’t even a purist protest candidate, makes little sense to me.
To reiterate yet again, I’m OK with people aiming the 2-minute hate at Rand Paul, I am just acting as defense counsel to make sure we are procedurally fair. This isn’t the Obama war room, for crying out loud.
You realize Long is an anarchist who doesn’t even endorse voting at all, right?
All he was doing is pointing out the irony of Rand Paul endorsing arguably the *least* libertarian of the candidate, especially when one of the two most-libertarian candidates was his father.
You realize Long is an anarchist who doesn’t even endorse voting at all, right?
Yep.
All he was doing is pointing out the irony of Rand Paul endorsing arguably the *least* libertarian of the candidate, especially when one of the two most-libertarian candidates was his father.
Wait, Ron and Rand are related?!
This is a no win for Rand. He endorses his dad and campaigns for him for 6 years, then sort of reluctantly admits that Romney would be better than Obama – while reiterating his preference for his father. I don’t see what the big deal is, either. Some people have always hated on Ron Paul for his “compromise” in the House of Representatives, of course… because he made a deal with the GOP to vote for the Speaker and Leader that the caucus chose (I doubt Gingrich, Hastert, Armey, et al. were really his preference for leadership).
I am also surprised at the reaction.
Obviously people were not paying attention to Rand’s previous statements, or his more compromising approach to politics. They had in mind a fantasy that Rand Paul was the next Ron Paul. So now they go to the other extreme and claim he’s a traitor who cannot be supported ever again.
Rand is the most libertarian Senator and I think he’s still fighting on our side. To the degree he advances the cause of liberty, he should be supported.
Exactly. Rand Paul very clearly explained (many times) that as a Republican party member, he fully intended endorsing whoever officially won the primaries.
Romney won, and Rand Paul endorsed him, just like he had promised to do.
“But to instead say he should have endorsed his dad”
I never said he should have endorsed his dad. I also never said he should have endorsed Johnson. I certainly don’t endorse either of them.
What I do think is that if one is going to endorse a candidate, it’d be better to endorse someone kinda-sorta libertarian-leaning like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson than to endorse a slimy statist like Romney.
“Obviously people were not paying attention to Rand’s previous statements, or his more compromising approach to politics. They had in mind a fantasy that Rand Paul was the next Ron Paul. So now they go to the other extreme and claim he’s a traitor who cannot be supported ever again.”
Maybe this is true of somebody, but it’s not true of me. I’ve never had a good word to say about Rand Paul. And although I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, I’ve never been under the illusion that Rand Paul was as libertarian as Ron.
Roderick wrote:
What I do think is that if one is going to endorse a candidate, it’d be better to endorse someone kinda-sorta libertarian-leaning like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson than to endorse a slimy statist like Romney.
Right. I don’t understand why you (and James J.) think I am 5 years old. I knew that’s what your argument was, and I’m saying it makes no sense.
You can say, “He should endorse someone he actually wants to be president,” in which case he should pick Captain America or David Friemdan or someone like that. Or you can say, “He should restrict himself to people who might actually win,” in which case the choice is between Romney and Obama.
What makes little sense to me is to say, “He should restrict himself to people who are actually running for president, even though some of them have as much chance of winning as David Friedman does.”
See my reply back at my site.
I wrote a piece on this as well.
When a Rand openly endorses Mitt Romney, he is openly endorsing all of the things the establishment is currently doing. Only a total idiot would believe Mitt Romney is going to do anything different from Obama.
So when Rand endorses Mitt, he is really endorsing war, mass murder, theft, bank bailouts, corporate welfare, etc.. etc.. etc.. Libertarians aren’t stupid. They recognize what Rand is endorsing isn’t really Mitt, he is endorsing the things that are happening right now.
His endorsement of Romney disgusts me.
I agree 100% with this comment.
There’s a chance Romney might spend less… depends on how much foothold the tea party get in Congress.
There’s a chance Ron Paul might be able to shake a few concessions out of Romney at the convention.
That’s about the best you get. There’s far too few Libertarians out there to achieve much more than talking to people — which is exactly what the Paul family are doing.
Would you still find it within you to be the voice of fairness if Rand had endorsed Obama, Bob? This ain’t no two-minute hate. This is pure grassroots rage.
roo if Roderick blogged, “Why did he endorse Obama? Was it because he wanted to court the black vote? In that case, why not endorse David Duke? He would cut taxes at least,” then yes I also would have said that Roderick’s post made absolutely no sense.
“To reiterate yet again” is redundant. Why not simply write: “To reiterate”?
Maybe he wants to specify he’s reiterating for a second time? (i.e he has iterated three times?)
Bharat, I can’t tell if you’re kidding, but yes that actually is what I was doing. Go look again Ashton: I first said “To be clear,” and then in the next paragraph I was repeating a different point. So that’s why I said “To reiterate yet again.” I grant it may have been clumsy, especially since it caused you angst, but I know the difference between “To reiterate” and “To reiterate yet again.”
Americans will always lynch for the right reasons when there is no other reason left.
Winston Churchill Mosler
He should have endorsed Cthulu.
But Cthulhu is a democrat
No, he’s Elder Party.
But Democrats, unlike Murphy, care for the Elderly
I could “care” for the elderly too if I had the legal authority to steal from people.
And if by “care” you mean want to annihilate, as Cthulu battled his half-brother Elder God Hastur, then yes, your analogy makes sense.
You want to steal too?
As if Roddis squandering stolen gas to give meaning to his life wasn’t enough…
You want to steal too?
I’m not a Democrat.
I don’t understand why Bob Murphy would defend Rand Paul in this situation. The guy endorsed Mitt Romney who is worse than Obama, insofar as he pretends to be a “conservative” and belongs to the republican party. And if he wins we’re going to see 4 or 8 more years of George W. Bush, only worse (imagine what he can do with the republican Congress and such brave budget warriors as Paul Ryan in helm, who would increase the budget just by 1 trillion, not 2 trillion as Obama).
So, what’s the point of the entire exercise apart from playing the word-games and rhetorically splitting hairs? Romney is no better than Obama from any sort of libertarian point of view, worth of its name. What is the difference exactly between endorsing Romney and endorsing Obama? Maybe Murphy wants to make a case that Romney is SO MUCH better than Obama so Rand deserves to be given credit here or least excused somewhat? That’s the only case in which this defense of Rand Paul would have made any sense.
You must have missed the part where he said this,
“I’m OK with people aiming the 2-minute hate at Rand Paul, I am just acting as defense counsel to make sure we are procedurally fair.”
Dan, or the very title of the post.
Nikolaj,
I don’t understand why Bob Murphy would defend Rand Paul in this situation.
Everyone accused of murder, even people caught on camera, gets a defense lawyer. Do you think that’s bad or good?
I don’t think Rand Paul should have endorsed Mitt Romney, and I agree with Tom Woods that it would awful if Ron Paul did. I am saying that if we’re going to have a massive hatefest for a few days, with people on FB making posters putting Rand Paul’s picture next to Benedict Arnold’s etc (really happening), then I at least want the specific criticisms to be coherent.
And I have to say, the people saying, “Now there’s only one guy left to support, Gary Johnson,” make no sense. Roderick, who sees the futility in voting, should understand why I think that.
Ok. I castigated you harshly in my previous comment, before reading this. So, ok you are against what Rand Paul had done. Personally, I like your writing style and the way you think. So, I would be much much more interested in reading your analysis why Rand Paul was wrong in endorsing Romney. than in your petty quarrel with Roderick Long. The fact that you had chosen not to do so, but rather to concentrate on your scholastic and pedantic dispute over logic with Long, while complaining about poor Rand Paul who got lynched by the extremists for me was enough to conclude that you are supporting him.
Is anybody really confused about why it was a bad idea for Rand to support Mitt? Isn’t it obvious.
I agree. What’s even more bizarre is some of the hate Ron Paul is getting from some of his supporters on his Facebook page over something his son did.
Personally, I’ll support Rand when I feel he is standing up for libertarian principles, like I would for anyone, but I won’t waste time or money trying to further his political career. I could never trust a guy to represent my values if he was willing to endorse someone like Romney. On the bright side, I probably won’t have to waste anymore time voting again. Well, unless Tom Woods decides to roll around with the pigs some day. I think he is too smart to ever do something like that though.
An interesting take on Ron, Rand and the future of the GOP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bijuD4evpc&feature=g-all-c
Roderick’s against Rand Paul?
I agree with Bob: lets burn the commie.
Anonyjerk, yes, that sums up the mentality on FB, just with role reversal. Lynch mobs make me uncomfortable.
Excuse me Sir, but that’s pure BS. If you wanted to make a disinterested exercise in logical analysis of a speech act ala John Searle you could do so. And you could find many other, more illogical statements than Long’s to analyze.
If you were not endorsing Rand’s position, you should not be writing an entire mini-essay, whining about poor Rand Paul who got lynched by the intellectually deficient extremists. Why did not you say openly what you think about the issue, instead of wasting our time lecturing us about the subtleties of Aristotelian logic? Don’t you think that your readers would be more interested in reading what you have to say about Rand Paul than what you have to say about Roderick Long? You have chosen to write on Long in order to avoid writing about Rand Paul, while insinuating by your tone and your language that you actually support him.
Nikolaj,
Here are some excerpts from my post:
“Let’s Lynch for the Right Reasons at Least” (actual title)
“No matter what the situation, I want to whisper, “Are you sure?” before we lynch someone.”
“To be clear, my point is this: I think Roderick’s post would have made a lot more sense if he just said, “Rand should have kept his mouth shut.””
“To reiterate yet again, I’m OK with people aiming the 2-minute hate at Rand Paul, I am just acting as defense counsel to make sure we are procedurally fair.”
And it’s my fault that you concluded from the above, that I think it was fine for Rand Paul to endorse Mitt Romney? I think most of my readers know the obvious problems with him doing that. I thought people were overreacting, calling him “Benedict Arnold” and putting up posters of him as Darth Vader. When Roderick then implied that it would have been better to endorse Gary Johnson, that’s when I finally spoke up, since Roderick doesn’t endorse Gary Johnson and could presumably be mad at the “sellout” Rand Paul for buying into voting and the political process if he had endorsed Gary Johnson.
That’s what’s really funny about all this. A bunch of anarchists are all of a sudden horrified that a sitting US senator did something to promote his career. Oh my gosh who ever would have thought that? Let’s flip out for 48 hours.
“A bunch of anarchists are all of a sudden horrified that a sitting US senator did something to promote his career”
Bingo!
Though, I must say that there are probably a lot of minarchists in that mix, as well.
“I want to whisper, “Are you sure?” before we lynch someone.”
We are not lynching anybody, but calling a sellout politician out for what he had done. I did not know you were so sensitive about the emotions of politicians. Maybe we should be also much more sensitive about Obama’s and Romney’s emotion, and to stop “lynching” them as well?
I am not saying that Rand should have supported Garry Johnson, but only that by his support to Romney, and moreover, by his unsolicited promise to actively campaign for him (!!!), Rand discredited himself completely as a reliable right-wing politician, let alone a libertarian. It’s sad that you don’t see that, or don;t want to see..
Nikolaj wrote:
It’s sad that you don’t see that, or don;t want to see..
Nikolaj, earlier today you yelled at me for not being clearer about my personal disapproval of what Rand Paul did. Now you are back to thinking I approved (or don’t care about) what he did.
We are not lynching anybody, but calling a sellout politician out for what he had done.
Yes, and some of the arguments used in this “calling” made no sense to me. Is it really so outrageous that I want to make sure our criticisms make sense?
In what sense is Rand Paul, who ran for office as an official REPUBLICAN candidate a ‘sellout’ for behaving like a Republican?
If he had run against the gop, as a candidate for the Libertarian Party ‘sellout’ might fit.
Not that this matters much anymore, but it does ruin my argument that Santorum was not a true conservative or better than Romney because he endorsed Romney in 2008..
Rand Paul has now officially joined the Republicriminal and Demogangster Establishment.
Remember, while Rand vigorously yet unsuccessfully attempted to derail the NDAA law, in the past, he did say the following regarding the idea of “profiling”:
“I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.”
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/603311/rand_paul,_supposed_defender_of_civil_liberties,_calls_for_jailing_people_who_attend_%E2%80%98radical_political_speeches%E2%80%99/
To be fair, only very unstable people would actually do the act in question. I think we can agree that ‘pre-crime’ is a bad idea, but Timothy McVey is also a very bad person.
Rand Paul should have abstained from endorsing anyone but his father. Those who defend Rand on account of his having said before that he would endorse whoever the Republican nominee is fail to justify that very statement by Rand. It’s like saying, “I can’t blame person A for murdering person B, because person A told me that he was going to murder person B.” That’s ridiculous. Up until recently, I thought that, if Ron didn’t win the presidency, I would want Obama to win, so that Romney wouldn’t be the incumbent and Rand would have a chance to run in 2016. I still kind of stick to that position, but not with as much enthusiasm and gusto as before Rand endorsed Romney. I care less now about who wins.
Wild speculation. Maybe Rand Paul sees Romney as the lesser of two evils?
I know, totally crazy huh?
No shit, Sherlock. The problem is that a typical Paul supporter finds voting for the lesser of two evils to be a horrible decision.
Yup. Better to be pure than effective. Results don’t matter, faith does.
Are you saying that Mitt Romney is going to deliver results for libertarians? You either have no idea what people like me consider a positive result or I’ve missed all the libertarian policies Romney has been saying he will enact if he becomes president. How anti-libertarian do our two choices have to be before it makes no sense to support either, in your opinion? Not voting for either of these two doesn’t make a libertarian pure, it keeps them from becoming The antithesis of pure.
Voting is effective?
LOL voting is an act of pure faith.
I really don’t see the problem with Rand endorsing Romney. His ego is not as alienated as Ron Paul’s.
Hm, it seems that mainstream media is not buying this “Rand’s-endorsement-of-Romney-is-fine-because Ron Paul-ended-his-campaign” nonsense;
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0609/Why-did-Rand-Paul-forsake-his-dad-Ron-Paul-for-Mitt-Romney
Whether it’s fair or not, this video made me laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvm6eXQGZ4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
You guys are just throwing words around.
There is noone more angrier at Rand Paul right now than…
Alex Jones!!!
Was it Rand’s chances for the 2016 election? A promise of a Romney VP spot? (hardly). A Bilderberg threat against Ron’s life if Rand doesn’t endorse Romney?
Keep speculating, keep voting, and keep losing…