Center for a Stateless Society » Rand Paul

Rand Paul has been touted as a libertarian Republican. In spite of the fact that he has claimed to not be a libertarian. This claim is also peculiar due to his statements about not wanting to end the War on Drugs. Not to mention his promotion of a “pro-life” anti-abortion rights bill. And his lack of belief in a borderless world. These are all positions contrary to radical libertarian principle.

Not only would we see a violation of said principle from a Rand Paul presidency, it would help sustain the present perception amongst many non-libertarians that libertarianism is reactionary. This will make it more difficult for left-libertarians to reach out to the non-libertarian left. Something not at all good for our cause.

Genuinely radical libertarian politics doesn’t require a constitutional conservative savior to coming to our rescue. It requires bottom up direct action. And this is precisely what a preoccupation with the presidency as a mechanism for change ignores. It can only contribute to a bizarre “libertarian” cult of personality surrounding the holder of executive power.

Such cults of personality have wreaked major havoc throughout human history. Mao and Stalin worship come to mind. Libertarians should strive to avoid a repeat of this. Of course, Rand Paul is not proposing Stalinism or Maoism, but, a cult of persona surrounding him could lead to him getting away with the liberty destroying measures mentioned above.

Presidential politics is just not the right thing for libertarians to be involved with. One only need look at the deference shown towards Obama and George W. Bush by their respective partisans. They can literally get away with murder due to the respect offered them.

The transcendence of aforementioned presidential politics is key to the project of liberty. A commander in chief is fit for a militarized society, but, not an egalitarian one. Industrial organization such as that championed by friends of liberty calls for equality rather than hierarchies of command. A Rand Paul presidency would be a setback for that project. It would wrap the mantle of the presidency in the aura of liberty. Something that would lead to disaster for actual freedom.

In lieu of voting for Rand Paul, libertarians can work to create liberty by labor organizing, copwatch programs, and other such grassroots efforts. All of this will do far more to help the most disadvantaged members of society than a Rand Paul presidency would.

Yet Another Article Attacking Libertarianism

Natasha Petrova — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:00:07 +0000

Alternet just can’t stop publishing attacks on libertarianism. The article is titled “10 Reasons Americans Should be Wary of Rand Paul’s Libertarianism, Especially Young People“. It mistakenly labels Rand Paul a libertarian. He has stated he isn’t one:

They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.

He has also displayed a less than libertarian attitude on the War on Drugs:

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

Let us address several of the most important points in this piece. The author writes:

Rand Paul’s brand of libertarian believes that “liberty” is freedom from an oppressive government. But in a democracy the government is us. The real oppressors in today’s economic and political system are the corporations which increasingly dominate all aspects of our public and private lives

One need not choose between opposing government power or corporate power, both deserve our condemnation. They also tend to work together as the author acknowledges in her mention of the corporate state. The author also repeats the tired old fallacy of the government being us. If this were true, when the government kills us it would be suicide rather than murder. It also ignores that there is never total agreement about government policies. Elections always contain a minority that doesn’t get its way. In what meaningful sense are they part of the government? It also supposes a singular social super organism.

The author also contends:

Said Paul, “I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states.”

Why? So that decisions about what a woman does with her body can be made by politicians like that guy in Virginia wanted mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds for any woman who wanted to terminate a pregnancy?

The author is wrong to implicitly ascribe this position to libertarianism. Libertarianism is about individual rights and not states rights, No government has rights; only individuals do. On this issue, I agree with the criticism, but it has nothing to do with libertarian principle.

The final contention we address goes as follows:

Those of us who are fighting for jobs programs and infrastructure investment—two things that would help the millennial generation significantly—have a fierce opponent in Rand Paul. Paul believes government spending is inherently bad, and tax cuts are inherently good. There are jobs proposals that target millennials for assistance. Rand Paul is against them.

The author apparently thinks jobs are something that should be handed down by a governing class. We left-libertarians seek to create our own workplace. As far as infrastructure goes, state funded infrastructure is a way to externalize costs of business onto the general taxpayer. An example is roads used predominantly by corporations engaged in long distance shipping. We bear the costs of their business model. Let us work to put an end to this.

Sheldon Richman: Libertarianism = Anti-racism

Sheldon Richman — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:22:30 +0000

Rand Paul’s comments regarding the federal ban on racial discrimination in public accommodations (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II) have brought the libertarian position on civil rights to public attention.

Read the full TGIF here.

Sheldon Richman: Civil Rights and the Libertarian Principle

Sheldon Richman — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:18:58 +0000

My take on the Rand Paul flap is in today’s Christian Science Monitor.

Defend the Scoundrels, Rand!

Ross Kenyon — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:17:27 +0000

I painfully cringed my way through Rand Paul’s recent interview on The Rachel Maddow Show today on YouTube. If this isn’t a clear example of the folly of electoral politicking I don’t know what is. If you google “Rand Paul Civil Rights” and watch the video you will plainly see a writhing wannabe politico forced to jettison speaking his mind on a simple but ostensibly ugly libertarian principle.

There is a dark side to libertarianism. As H.L. Mencken said, “the trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” Libertarians aren’t always going to get pitched softball questions about small business owners and the regulations that harangue them or taxing and regulating marijuana. We have to actively defend what is often seen as the seedy underbelly of mainstream society: queers, intravenous drug users, racists, and every other nonaggressive but atypical lifestyle.

The great unifying principle of liberty is that as long as a behavior isn’t using force or fraud, or threatening its use against others, it should not be stopped or prevented with force. If racists, sexists, heterosexists, or any other naughty collectivist ‘ist’ one can think of does not want to associate with any of their hated imagined-as-meaningful groups then it is within their prerogative to make that choice.

The ideal reaction to private prejudice should be that all responsible justice-loving people use apolitical means to ostracize and punish the bigots socially and economically. One should use one’s own freedom of association to completely disassociate from those who support the principle that one disagrees with. This has recently been occurring with the boycotts and buycotts of Arizona as a result of SB1070. I am aware of very few people who are suggesting that force should be used to coerce racists to trade or be personal friends with brown people and/or undocumented immigrants.

The only choices for trying to change the behavior of prejudiced but peaceful individuals are as follows:

1) Allow for freedom of voluntary association and disassociation to solve nonviolent problems through peaceful persuasion, and…

2) Use the government’s force to coerce peaceful people to interact with others who don’t naturally want to do so.

I understand that if Rand had openly defended the principle of voluntary association and had said Woolworth’s had a right to turn away potential black clientele from their lunch counter he might as well have proffered his withdrawal from the Senate race. He had to utilize the technique of politickin’ of always answering the question one wished one had been asked. He successfully weaseled his way out of any conclusive gotcha! quotes, but everyone basically knows where his heart is. He would side with the privacy rights of the scoundrels.

His discard of principle is troubling. A clear and succinct defense of libertarian morality and respect for peaceful voluntary association and disassociation would have been more than philosophically satisfying to the rational viewer; at least I hope it would be. It’s a consistent position, libertarianism, and how often can one say that about other ideologies? Most are based on inconsistent moral reasoning and ex post facto justifications. Ah, but there is never time to defend moral principles and its consistent application for a brief cable news interview and it would probably destroy his public life and career.

Whether Ron Paul, Adam Kokesh, Debra Medina, Peter Schiff, and all other politickin’ libertarians have had a net gain or loss for radical freedom ideologies I will leave to someone else to analyze. After all, that is a complicated question. I am only stating that the road is fraught with compromise of principle when it comes to the defense of those on the outskirts of the mainstream.

Rand, I wouldn’t have expected any differently. We are drowning in a sea of silly here trying to hide our radicalism. Come out of the libertarian closet and be radical with the rest of us if that’s what you really are. We will join you in the defense of freedom — but you will have to acknowledge that those principles logically entail abolition of the state if you’re going to successfuly articulate and defend them.