09 Jun 2012

Three More Views on Rand Paul

Humor, Ron Paul 17 Comments

I was getting some pushback from some libertarians in the comments of my Rand Paul post, who apparently think evidentiary rules are for Guantanamo prisoners, not U.S. senators. Anyway, lest I be accused of not airing the more widespread libertarian reaction to the event, here are three videos that I enjoyed very much. [UPDATE: Tom Woods points out in the comments that actually, the video from him was from a couple weeks before Rand Paul endorsed Romney. I.e. Tom isn’t reacting to the endorsement.] (HT2 “Dan” in the comments here for the Star Wars one, and to Robert Wenzel for the other two.) P.S. If I point you guys to Dan McCarthy explaining why Rand Paul did this, will you bite his head off too? In that case, don’t follow the link.

17 Responses to “Three More Views on Rand Paul”

  1. Bharat says:

    HAHAHA the Anakin comparison is just too funny. I see all these people upset at Rand Paul for endorsing Romney, but I just can’t find it in me to care. It really should have been known he would do this since he became a Senator. He has been playing the political game since the beginning and nothing has changed.

    Obviously I disagree with his strategy and am disappointed he actually thinks it will work (I could be wrong, but seriously doubt it), but there’s no need to throw a hissy fit after his endorsement of Romney. Honestly, who did you think Rand Paul was these past few years? Ron Paul?

    Rockwell and Woods hit the nail on the head.

    • Dan (DD5) says:

      “Obviously I disagree with his strategy and am disappointed he actually thinks it will work…”

      Why are you almost apologizing for him giving him the credit for a “strategy”? Give me a break!! Nothing more pathetic in theses libertarian blogs and forums to see all the excuses for him despite the alleged disappointment.

      Rand had never adhered to the principles of freedom and free markets. He had deceived no one! So he cannot be a sell out. It is people like you in places like c4l that have created this fantasy about Rand the Libertarian. Now you continue with your fantasy about a “strategy”. It’s really pathetic!

      Rand is and always was a statist like all politicians and he had never indicated that he was not.

      • Bharat says:

        Regardless of what he calls himself, he votes somewhat consistently as an old conservative rather than a neo-conservative. Old conservative policy is very similar to libertarian policy.

        • Tony says:

          Yes, you see libertarians endorsing fascist, warmongering evil, and voting for sanctions against the Empire’s next target all the time.
          Very similar to libertarians.

  2. Dan says:

    I think the assessment from Dan McCarthy is spot on. I think it is an ignorant strategy but I think Rand Paul endorsed Mitt for those reasons McCarthy brought up. I’m just not willing to throw my support behind someone who would stoop so low regardless of his reasons for doing it. I don’t think we’re going to change DC from the inside so I don’t see a good reason for compromising principle just to play ball. I think the only way to change anything is through educational efforts and that is what I respected about Ron Paul. I don’t care whether Ron Paul inspires people to vote for him. I like that he inspires people to study libertarianism and Austrian economics. It’d be tough to argue that any other libertarian has done more in that regard than Ron Paul.

  3. Jeremy R. Hammond says:

    Here’s the problem with Dan McCarthy’s argument trying to defend Rand Paul’s action:

    “If the integration strategy fails — and giving up one’s principles would be the greatest failure of all, yet so far Rand’s Senate record is pretty good…”

    The fallacy here is that “the integration strategy” is ipso facto “giving up one’s principles”, since it serves to legitimize the very establishment one’s principles says deserves no recognition of legitimacy. Come on, we all heard him saying that Mitt Romey would have a responsible foreign policy. Do any of us actually believe a President Romney would represent a shift in foreign policy? Seriously? Does anyone here seriously think Rand actually believes that nonsense?

    Let’s not kid ourselves. This is a betrayal of values, period. Throughout Ron Paul’s campaign, what have all of us who have supported him been saying? That the “lesser of evils” voting strategy is a part of the problem, that we need to vote our conscience (i.e. vote Ron Paul), and that if everyone who said “Yeah, I like Ron Paul, but he’s unelectable” voted for Ron Paul, he could have a real shot at the presidency. Now what has Rand gone and done? He’s just reinforced the “lesser of evils” fallacy in a way that serves only to legitimize and perpetuate the establishment order. I don’t see how anyone can see this as anything other than compromising the principles we were led to believe he shared with his father.

    I for one would never cast my vote for Mitt Romney. If I bother to vote, I will write in Ron Paul’s name on my ballot, same as I did in 2008, because Ron Paul alone as a candidate represents the principles I believe in. Mitt Romney represents the very opposite of the principles I believe in. The “principles” Rand illustrated he holds by endorsing this man tells me Rand unfortunately does not share the principles I believe in in this regard.

    So to people who want to defend what he did, ask yourselves whether this action is representative and illustrative of the principles YOU espouse. Would YOU vote for Mitt Romney?

    Tom Woods’ commentary was absolutely right on. I hope Tom doesn’t reverse himself now that Rand has done the very deed Tom warned would be a betrayal of values and principle.

  4. Tom Woods says:

    Bob, FYI, the YouTube of me is from a couple weeks ago; it isn’t directly a reaction to this.

  5. Tom Woods says:

    Jeremy, I would have no reason to do so.

  6. Rob D. says:

    As someone who was a huge Rand supporter (I was at his very first fund raiser at Webster Hall in NYC), this whole situation is a very hard pill to swallow. Many supporters donated time and money to him on the premise that he was relatively close to the libertarian community, while not necessarily being one. In his time as a senator he has made some very promising speeches and votes and conversely some hurtful ones.

    So it becomes a matter of how much of his action is for the GOP dog and pony show and how much of it is the true Rand?

    Either way, as staunch libertarians/ancaps, are we not aided by having a buffer like Rand? The case I’ve been making to people is that it took decades, if not centuries, to go from the bastion of freedom that the American revolution created to the impending draconian big brother state we all see coming around the corner. So wouldn’t it also take time and persuasion to reverse the ship? I hope people didn’t think that Ron Paul becoming the president wasn’t going to magically cure all of society’s ails. Anyway, I have become very cynical of the whole movement in the past year or so. It has become a recurring thought that people deserve the government they have. Is that pessimism or realism?

    P.S. Bob and Tom, you are 2 of my favorite people, that I’ve never met, in the world. Actually that’s not true I once kicked Mr. Woods off of a pool table, very politely, in New Hampshire. Keep up the outstanding work and hopefully you guys are coming to NY soon.

  7. Rob D. says:

    Oops “I hope people didn’t think that Ron Paul becoming the president was* going to magically cure all of society’s ails.”

    Damn double negatives.

  8. L C says:

    Rand is no Ron.

  9. marris says:

    Has Lew Rockwell lost a lot of weight? He seemed much heavier even two years ago.

  10. Matthew Murphy says:

    There’s also views from Adam Kokesh, Jack Hunter, Alex Jones, Robert Scott Bell, and Tom Mullen… just to name a few more.

  11. Nikolaj says:

    Here is maybe the most explosive of all:


  12. Nikolaj says:

    this one is also interesting:


Leave a Reply