Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul)

i don't think it's fair to think that Rand Paul represents modern libertarianism, he's much more of a paleoconservative than even his father is.

i would consider myself poltically both extremely liberal and libretarian at the same time, a lot of the traditional dogmatic things spoken from both of these sides contradict eachother on many levels, thats why i don't subscribe to one specific political party.

most libertarians these days would have a lot to disagree with Rand Paul about, especially his views on civil liberties

edit: in reply to disparaissant

i dunno though, it would have been interesting to see if the world just naturally became desegregated over time. As long as there's a minimum wage, why not let a business only employ whites/asians/latinos? The fact that this idea seems so absurd and anachronistic now shows how much of a cultural sea change has taken place. Not sure how much this had to do with laws, though the laws certainly accelerated the process...I admit it'd be really weird if the south was still segregated today, but I wonder if they might not have been "shamed" out of it anyway...

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:38 AM, Awepittance said:

i don't think it's fair to think that Rand Paul represents modern libertarianism, he's much more of a paleoconservative than even his father is.

i would consider myself poltically both extremely liberal and libretarian at the same time, a lot of the traditional dogmatic things spoken from both of these sides contradict eachother on many levels, thats why i don't subscribe to one specific political party.

most libertarians these days would have a lot to disagree with Rand Paul about, especially his views on civil liberties

id say he represents what "modern libertarianism" has become. not what libertarianism actually is, to be sure. but he's definitely pandering to the tea-party crowd, and that's (unfortunately?) where libertarianism is going.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:42 AM, disparaissant said:

. but he's definitely pandering to the tea-party crowd, and that's (unfortunately?) where libertarianism is going.

that's absolutely not true, maybe some aspects of the media are trying to paint the phenomenon this way but grab a copy of Reason magazine (the largest libertarian publication) and tell me that it's in any way shape or form congruent with the fox news tea party 'movement' ( i put it in quotes because its all hyped up astro turfing). I think the only people who would say this are people who haven't paid even a smidgen of attention to the last 3 presidential candidates for the libertarian party. Have you read any essays by Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik? Give it a go and i think you'll find how drastically different their views are from this fake ass bullshit. The TEA party 'movement' is trying to coopt energy from a paleo conservative fracture off of the playbook of 1960s conservative libertarianism (or if you can even call it that, its a totally different animal). Don't buy into the hype, rand paul and ron paul do not represent most of the important pillars of modern libertarianism. I'm not defending any of the positions, jsut trying to steer the conversation away from hyperbole and misunderstandings.

edit: idiotic knee jerk reactionary conservatives can't even wrap their head around what libertarianism even means, the republican party is just stealing ideas from the people with the most energy so that they don't implode from the inside

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

edit: in reply to disparaissant

 

i dunno though, it would have been interesting to see if the world just naturally became desegregated over time. As long as there's a minimum wage, why not let a business only employ whites/asians/latinos? The fact that this idea seems so absurd and anachronistic now shows how much of a cultural sea change has taken place. Not sure how much this had to do with laws, though the laws certainly accelerated the process...I admit it'd be really weird if the south was still segregated today, but I wonder if they might not have been "shamed" out of it anyway...

it definitely would be interesting, but i don't have much faith in humanity. and considering the protests against the civil rights act and the fact that it wasn't even really supported by a majority of the american populace at the time, i really doubt that the south would have been shamed into it in any reasonable amount of time. it would definitely be a more interesting country, though. maybe a lot of folks down there would have come up to the more liberal northern states and the south would just be a third world white wasteland.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:44 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:42 AM, disparaissant said:

. but he's definitely pandering to the tea-party crowd, and that's (unfortunately?) where libertarianism is going.

 

that's absolutely not true, maybe some aspects of the media are trying to paint the phenomenon this way but grab a copy of Reason magazine (the largest libertarian publication) and tell me that it's in any way shape or form congruent with the fox news tea party 'movement' ( i put it in quotes because its all hyped up astro turfing)

my point is the libertarianism that is represented by reason magazine is not where "modern libertarianism" is headed. we're kind of just arguing semantics though.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:46 AM, disparaissant said:

maybe a lot of folks down there would have come up to the more liberal northern states and the south would just be a third world white wasteland.

I had the same thought...something strange is having been in China for four years, I haven't the slightest idea what this whole "Tea Party" movement is about...ah, blissful ignorance.

wow, that maddow gal is as bad as glen beck

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:50 AM, GORDO said:

wow, that maddow gal is as bad as glen beck

erm, not even close. she's certainly biased, but she at least admits it, and she doesn't fake cry or shill for gold selling companies on her show.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:46 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

edit: in reply to disparaissant

 

i dunno though, it would have been interesting to see if the world just naturally became desegregated over time. As long as there's a minimum wage, why not let a business only employ whites/asians/latinos? The fact that this idea seems so absurd and anachronistic now shows how much of a cultural sea change has taken place. Not sure how much this had to do with laws, though the laws certainly accelerated the process...I admit it'd be really weird if the south was still segregated today, but I wonder if they might not have been "shamed" out of it anyway...

 

it definitely would be interesting, but i don't have much faith in humanity. and considering the protests against the civil rights act and the fact that it wasn't even really supported by a majority of the american populace at the time, i really doubt that the south would have been shamed into it in any reasonable amount of time. it would definitely be a more interesting country, though. maybe a lot of folks down there would have come up to the more liberal northern states and the south would just be a third world white wasteland.

 

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:44 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:42 AM, disparaissant said:

. but he's definitely pandering to the tea-party crowd, and that's (unfortunately?) where libertarianism is going.

 

that's absolutely not true, maybe some aspects of the media are trying to paint the phenomenon this way but grab a copy of Reason magazine (the largest libertarian publication) and tell me that it's in any way shape or form congruent with the fox news tea party 'movement' ( i put it in quotes because its all hyped up astro turfing)

 

my point is the libertarianism that is represented by reason magazine is not where "modern libertarianism" is headed. we're kind of just arguing semantics though.

im not trying to be dickish here but do you have a crystal ball? Do you really think something with such strict fundamental principals can have the rugged pulled out from under it and stolen by the 2010 schizophrenic republican party? Christians were an easy one to suck in, they successfully did it in the 70s but i am pretty sure the average atheist libertarian holds more intelligence than a fundamentalist or born again christian. If you really think the teay party just by merely making platitudes and trying to steal energy from libs will work , i think you haven't been paying attention to politics for very long. I can't fault you for that though because they are really fucking boring, i don't even know why i bother anymore.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:51 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:50 AM, GORDO said:

wow, that maddow gal is as bad as glen beck

erm, not even close. she's certainly biased, but she at least admits it, and she doesn't fake cry or shill for gold selling companies on her show.

false equivalencies! making a comeback they are

i've been paying attention, and i do agree with you, to a point. like i said, it's semantics. "true" libertarians are loathe to admit that the watered down shit the tea partiers are spewing is, in fact, a form of (admittedly weak and only fiscal and really hypocritical MORE DEFENSE SPENDING) libertarianism, and it's actually becoming somewhat mainstream, rather than being something that's well underground and not all that popular. to put it in literary terms, the actual definition of libertarianism is not changing, but the common usage is.

i kind of hate myself for typing all that

also haha how is that a false equivalency?

ok i get what you're saying a little better now, but i guess for me personally i've never seen the 'anti-tax' thing as a pillar of libertarianism that i'm passionate about. it the fiscal stuff is absurd though. How can anyone take these assholes seriously when they sat like loyal servants while bush created the biggest deficit in history? thats why im sick of hearing about them, i feel like Fox news was successful in making people believe an astro turfed movement was genuine and had power or sway.

ps i totally agree with you on the paying attention to politics thing, i wish i didnt care at all and i dont even know why im bothering to continue this conversation because i am literally hating every second of it.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:51 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:50 AM, GORDO said:

wow, that maddow gal is as bad as glen beck

erm, not even close. she's certainly biased, but she at least admits it, and she doesn't fake cry or shill for gold selling companies on her show.

same amount of nonsense.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:57 AM, Awepittance said:

How can anyone take these assholes seriously when they sat like loyal servants while bush created the biggest deficit in history?

this is the million fucking dollar question, i have nooo idea.

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:55 AM, disparaissant said:

ialso haha how is that a false equivalency?

i was referring to what gordo said, not your response

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:58 AM, GORDO said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:51 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 3:50 AM, GORDO said:

wow, that maddow gal is as bad as glen beck

erm, not even close. she's certainly biased, but she at least admits it, and she doesn't fake cry or shill for gold selling companies on her show.

 

same amount of nonsense.

nope

it's funny how people can't spot a bad argument when they agree with who's saying it.

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, GORDO said:

it's funny how people can't spot a bad argument when they agree with who's saying it.

what does that have to do with what you said?

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, GORDO said:

it's funny how people can't spot a bad argument when they agree with who's saying it.

but thats not what you said, if you would have said 'she's making a bad argument' i would be like 'ok you have a point' but you literally said she was as bad as glenn beck, which is pretty laughable

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:02 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, GORDO said:

it's funny how people can't spot a bad argument when they agree with who's saying it.

what does that have to do with what you said?

lol

i just think there's as much illogical nonsense coming out of her mouth than from beck's. and both act as arrogant know-it-alls. beck cries, she's macho, same difference.

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:02 AM, disparaissant said:

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:00 AM, GORDO said:

it's funny how people can't spot a bad argument when they agree with who's saying it.

what does that have to do with what you said?

everything?

  On 5/22/2010 at 4:07 AM, GORDO said:

i just think there's as much illogical nonsense coming out of her mouth than from beck's. and both act as arrogant know-it-alls. beck cries, she's macho, same difference.

but it's not the same difference. she may make (in your opinion) bad arguments, but she's at least got a modicum of integrity. and she doesn't outright lie, like beck does. and she's not near as hypocritical. or reactionary. and she doesn't shill products on her own show for her own financial gain. the list goes on. she is nowhere near the same level of scumbag that glenn beck is. it's not black or white, perfect or scumbag. it's like comparing some guy who got drunk and killed someone in his car with adolf hitler, saying "well they both killed people so they're both equally terrible." glenn beck would love that comparison.

ok then, i believe you, i don't care either way.

lol

god fucking damn it why can't I not care. fucking politics!

I'm not a usamerican