Why Rand Paul supporters should resist the #FeeltheBern calls

posted at 3:31 pm on February 7, 2016 by Taylor Millard

There’s a new push by Bernie Sanders supporters to try to lure Rand Paul supporters into the #FeeltheBern fold. Julie Borowski was the first to notice a meme circulating around the web, and put it up on her Facebook page.

paulandsanders

First off, it’s doubtful Borowski is even considering Sanders as a potential candidate because of her videos on economic freedom and past criticism of Sanders. But it’s not surprising at all to see Sanders supporters go after Paul ones based on the stances listed in the meme. After all, Paul supporters have targeted Sanders supporters over certain issues before turning it into a discussion on freedom and liberty. The thing Paul’s libertarian supporters need to really consider before deciding to join the Sanders camp is the fact how anti-freedom and liberty the Vermont Senator is due to his democratic socialist viewpoints. This is something Terry Michael wrote in his final piece at Reason (before either his contract ran out, or he was run out for his leftist viewpoints) (emphasis mine):

There are three issue frames in politics. Foreign. Social. Economic. Sanders is as non-interventionist as Ron Paul on foreign policy. He is as pro-choice and pro-gay rights as Yahweh on social issues (Yahweh has come a long way in the past several decades). And like most of us libertarians who despise crony capitalism, Bernie eschews the big three rent-seeking lobbies: Big Investment Banks, Big Pharma Drug Dealers, and Big War Profiteers.

Granted, he wants free health care, free day care, free college tuition, and free scoops of Ben and Jerry’s. But hey, nobody’s perfect.

The “free health care, free day care, free college tuition” line is exactly why Paul’s libertarian supporters shouldn’t be jumping on the Sanders train. I’ve already written why Sanders’ “free college tuition” proposal is a load of crap because the Swedish model he based it on doesn’t exist. Sanders is also pushing government spending which could end up costing $18T by focusing on punishing the rich, which Emily Zanotti at The American Spectator pointed out doesn’t work because it thinks “the rich” won’t leave the U.S. to save money like they did in France. The only way Sanders’ “tax the rich” scheme might work is if the government sends cops or bureaucrats to every millionaire’s home and business to tell them when and where they can transfer money (and no Rand Paul fan should be interested in that). Reason has also written why Sanders’ proposals would probably destroy the U.S. economy. There’s also the fact Sanders is completely hypocritical when it comes to super PACs. He’s trumpeted the fact he doesn’t have a super PAC on his website, and wants to get rid of the Citizens United decision, but The New York Times pointed out Sanders is actually benefiting from Citizens United because of how many unions are donating to him.

The union’s “super PAC” has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Howard Dean even told MSNBC last week how unions were really super PACs (which is shocking because no Democrat seems willing to admit this). This shows Sanders’ claim to want to get money out of politics doesn’t hold water. Sanders’ hypocrisy on Citizens United is why Paul’s supporters should be extremely hesistant about supporting him. This is why it’s important for libertarians to make sure their brethren aren’t deceived by Sanders’ supporters as they try to lure them into the other camp. Yes, economic inequality is an issue. But the question is what’s the best way for people in the lower class to make it into the middle class, and the middle class into the upper class? Is it raising taxes on the super rich in an attempt to pay off the lower classes by giving out “free stuff”? Or is it by lowering taxes and regulations on everyone (from big corporations to the small business owner to the guy or gal working two jobs), plus reducing government spending (to help lower costs), as a way to make sure more people get to keep more cash and reduce the chance of the government asking for more money in the future? It’s something Paul supporters need to consider when they head to the polls.

Rand Paul’s decision to leave the race has his Republican supporters trying to figure out which candidate they’ll throw their vote at in the upcoming primaries. It’s not the easiest of decisions because the majority of the other GOP candidates are in favor of more war or more government spending. There are some who’d consider Ted Cruz an option, but his libertarian streak sometimes seems more of convenience than actual priciple (and that’s coming from someone who donated to his 2012 Senate campaign). But those who are Paul fans should strongly resist the idea of a Sanders’ candidacy. It’s true some of his stances are similar to Paul’s, but that doesn’t matter a hill of beans when #FeeltheBern is pushing for more laws, regulations, and spending to choke out the ability for ANYONE to get further in life. The best option is to look at the Libertarian Party candidates like ex-New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, Austin Petersen, or Marc Allan Feldman. As for who to vote for in the GOP primary, that’s falls on supporters of Bush, Carson, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Gilmore, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump to explain why their candidate is best for libertarians who also happen to be Republicans.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Used to be you had some spunk in ya

DarkCurrent on February 7, 2016 at 6:58 PM

Usta be you had some American in you…:P

Judge_Dredd on February 7, 2016 at 7:05 PM

Usta be you had some American in you…:P

Judge_Dredd on February 7, 2016 at 7:05 PM

I thought you were banned? How’d ya get back on here?

DarkCurrent on February 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM

Libertarians are leftys. They voted for obama so it makes sense they will go with the commie.

Blake on February 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM

What about Ron Paul?

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:03 PM

A great man, whose standards damn few, including Ted Cruz apparently, can live up to.

And once again, that’s okay. Goldwater wouldn’t meet Ron Paul’s standards. I suppose you would vote Libertarian over Goldwater, also? Because he bats below the Ron Paul line? Mark Sanford certainly wouldn’t meet Ron Paul’s standard. But you know what? Both men would have a better chance of moving the ball down the field than any Libertarian candidate.

And if libertarians of all stripes were honest with themselves, they would admit that it isn’t even a question…

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM

Goldwater actively hated the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, and disowned the party entirely in the 1990s, favoring the Libertarian Party. He would never vote for Ted Cruz.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM

The situation is that there are more libertarian-minded individuals out there than ever before, and we have been dividing up among the two major parties, where we have been poorly served. If we start crystallizing around our own party, more people will flock to us from all over the place.

The critical mass necessary to have that kind of a break-out moment is not particularly large. Just look at the physics of Trump’s breakout in the polls. He went from nothing to frontrunner nearly overnight. All I’m asking for is 5%.

Realistically, we have a far better chance of replacing the Republican Party than of actually shaping it to our will.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:32 PM

Goldwater actively hated the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, and disowned the party entirely in the 1990s, favoring the Libertarian Party. He would never vote for Ted Cruz.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM

He was also known to hang out with the gangsters in Vegas.

RickB on February 7, 2016 at 7:44 PM

These days conservatives are much more likely to be freedom loving. Leftists are turning into fascists that want to use the power of government to force everyone to live by their moral standards. Going forward, you’re much better off convincing republican candidates and voters. BUT not you personally, because you just suck at it.

blink on February 7, 2016 at 7:39 PM

Economic freedom. Not personal freedom. Republicans love moralizing about personal behavior, culture, and identity even more than the Democrats.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM

Republicans love moralizing about personal behavior, culture, and identity even more than the Democrats.

Gee, it must be nice to think that people don’t derive their beliefs from the wider culture. Do you really believe humans are as enlightened as you, or are you blind to human nature?

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Economic freedom. Not personal freedom. Republicans love moralizing about personal behavior, culture, and identity even more than the Democrats.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM

Gee, it must be nice to think that people don’t derive their beliefs from the wider culture. Do you really believe humans are as enlightened as you, or are you blind to human nature?

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 7:57 PM

Thanks for supporting my point about the Republicans.

I think trying to use the government to engage in social engineering to wipe out certain cultures is only going to engender resent and greater stupidity. The Culture War is what drove the millennial generation away from the Republican Party.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:04 PM

I thought you were banned? How’d ya get back on here?

DarkCurrent on February 7, 2016 at 7:17 PM

“I popped in out of thin air.”

blink on February 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM

You living at BSchumer’s house yet?

Judge_Dredd on February 7, 2016 at 8:04 PM

The Culture War is what drove the millennial generation away from the Republican Party.

They never tried.

No presence on campuses, no defense of their beliefs at any level, constant failure theatre over their own policies. It’s no wonder miliennials don’t want them, they are fake.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM

They never tried.

No presence on campuses, no defense of their beliefs at any level, constant failure theatre over their own policies. It’s no wonder miliennials don’t want them, they are fake.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:06 PM

One of them did. Rand Paul did. And look what the party did to him.

It’s not just that the Republican’s aren’t trying- it’s that they don’t even WANT to try.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM

One of them did. Rand Paul did

Rand isn’t a culture warrior, as defined by yourself:

personal behavior, culture, and identity

.

Other examples of what you define as the culture war litter this thread, and only going by your own examples, he will never be one of them.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:22 PM

Other examples of what you define as the culture war litter this thread, and only going by your own examples, he will never be one of them.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:22 PM

Well that’s the thing. You can’t win over millennials by waging a culture war against them. You win them over by listening to their concerns and proposing small-government solutions to their problems. That’s what Rand Paul learned to do, and that’s why he made such inroads with them.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:33 PM

Well that’s the thing. You can’t win over millennials by waging a culture war against them.

Now we get to the part where you move the goal posts.

Didn’t take long at all.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:35 PM

Now we get to the part where you move the goal posts.

Didn’t take long at all.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:35 PM

You’re missing my point. If you think all a Republican needs to do to win over millennials is go to college campuses and preach religion, hatred towards Muslims, abstinence from sex and drugs, and closed borders, then you’re going to be severely disappointed.

Millennials aren’t blind. They all have internet access. They can see what the Republican Party is offering, and they don’t like it.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:38 PM

You’re missing my point. If you think all a Republican needs to do to win over millennials is go to college campuses and preach religion, hatred towards Muslims, abstinence from sex and drugs, and closed borders, then you’re going to be severely disappointed.

It’s not an instant gratification thing. This is a generational problem which began with the decadence of the boomers. It will take many more to re-align, but in the present, there’s no excuse for not even trying, unless we are now going to admit that we believe nothing.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:41 PM

It’s not an instant gratification thing. This is a generational problem which began with the decadence of the boomers. It will take many more to re-align, but in the present, there’s no excuse for not even trying, unless we are now going to admit that we believe nothing.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:41 PM

See, this really shows how libertarians and conservatives have fundamentally different goals. Where’s JohnGalt23? I want him to see this.

You keep making the Republican Party the culture-war party, and I’ll keep inviting people to join the Libertarian Party, where nobody will cast judgement on them unless they harm someone else.

We’ll see who wins the younger generations.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:56 PM

We’ll see who wins the younger generations.

Everyone grows older eventually. With age comes the crashing of idealism.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:58 PM

“I popped in out of thin air.”

Judge_Dredd on February 7, 2016 at 8:04 PM

恩知らず

DarkCurrent on February 7, 2016 at 9:00 PM

If a Rand Paul supporter switches to Bernie Sanders, then they didn’t understand what Paul stands for in the first place. The two candidates are polar opposites.

Nephew Sam on February 7, 2016 at 9:03 PM

Everyone grows older eventually. With age comes the crashing of idealism.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 8:58 PM

That’s funny, because people have been telling me since I was 16 that one day I would grow up and no longer be a libertarian. It hasn’t happened yet.

Rand Paul’s numbers in Iowa showed something very interesting: voters aged 18-24 voted 12% for Rand, voters aged 30-39 voted 14% for Rand, and then every age group 40 and older voted 2-3% for Rand.

So it seems all those libertarian college kids from 10 years ago are now in their 30s, and are still libertarian.

It may be true that people get less liberal and more conservative as they get older, but the same arithmetic does not hold between libertarianism and conservatism. What we’re observing here is an irreversible generational shift.

See, it’s important to distinguish between personal and economic freedoms. Economic progressives become better educated about the world as they get older and therefore become more economically conservative. On the other hand, people who support personal freedoms never give that up. So libertarians largely keep their views intact throughout life, and many of today’s liberal socialists will one day become libertarians, not right-wing conservatives. Meanwhile, more people are being born every day who support even greater personal freedoms, while more old people who support government-based cultural moralizing are dying off.

Conservatism is dying. The political battles of the future will be fought between the libertarians and the liberals. The conservatives will cease to exist as a faction.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM

That’s funny, because people have been telling me since I was 16 that one day I would grow up and no longer be a libertarian. It hasn’t happened yet.

It won’t set in until you have kids.

It set in for me as a watched my sister implode.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 9:27 PM

It won’t set in until you have kids.

It set in for me as a watched my sister implode.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 9:27 PM

What you don’t understand about libertarianism is that no life event can shake us from our beliefs. No matter what may go wrong, we feel it is the responsibility of free-acting individuals to sort it out, not the responsibility of government to dictate to us how to live our lives.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 9:33 PM

What you don’t understand about libertarianism is that no life event can shake us from our beliefs.

And what you don’t understand about conservatism is that we won’t turn a blind eye to bad decisions by others. You expect us not to judge idiots for their mistakes, in the foolish belief that they will change right away. You couldn’t be more wrong about human nature if you tried.

nobar on February 7, 2016 at 9:37 PM

So a limited government libertarian would vote for a government loving communist lite. That is funny.

ArthurMachado on February 7, 2016 at 9:38 PM

Any libertarian sucked in by the “Berning Itch” was never a libertarian in the first place. Or maybe they fancy themsleves one of those mythical creatures called a “left libertarian” (similar to the woman who claims she is a cat. they are Transpolitical). This meme illustrates exactly why an agreement between Rothbard and The New Left to protest the Vietnam War did not spawn a new left/right entity. This meme, like any predatory maneuver, will pick off the weak (minded) and the young.

allstonian on February 7, 2016 at 9:41 PM

Man, Schumer just keeps yapping and yapping and yapping.

Judge_Dredd on February 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM

You keep making the Republican Party the culture-war party, and I’ll keep inviting people to join the Libertarian Party, where nobody will cast judgement on them unless they harm someone else.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:56 PM

You are clueless about what culture is. You assume everyone thinks in roughly the same way you do with roughly the same assumptions about right and wrong and humanity and the role of human societies.

You are incredibly blindly ethnocentric.

I am a landlord. If I rented out to people without making “judgments” about them even though they haven’t hurt anyone, I’d go broke.

You think like a child.

That’s funny, because people have been telling me since I was 16 that one day I would grow up and no longer be a libertarian. It hasn’t happened yet.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM

Those people were mistaken. Some people never grow up.

fadetogray on February 7, 2016 at 9:57 PM

I am a landlord. If I rented out to people without making “judgments” about them even though they haven’t hurt anyone, I’d go broke.

fadetogray on February 7, 2016 at 9:57 PM

Well that depends on if those judgments are based in evidence that the person has done harm (i.e. a poor credit history) or based in something “cultural” like religion, country of origin, or tattoos.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 10:19 PM

I expect Rand Paul will be supporting the R nominee, because unlike fake “conservatives” who say they’ll vote Hillary if their boy isn’t picked, he’s not a complete 100% douche bag.

S. D. on February 7, 2016 at 10:25 PM

Or now, Bernie the commie.

S. D. on February 7, 2016 at 10:29 PM

I expect Rand Paul will be supporting the R nominee, because unlike fake “conservatives” who say they’ll vote Hillary if their boy isn’t picked, he’s not a complete 100% douche bag.

S. D. on February 7, 2016 at 10:25 PM

Or because the Republican Party will make the next 6 years a living hell for him if he doesn’t.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 10:47 PM

Well that depends on if those judgments are based in evidence that the person has done harm (i.e. a poor credit history) or based in something “cultural” like religion, country of origin, or tattoos.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 10:19 PM

A person with a poor credit score doesn’t need to have hurt anyone. Having no credit gives you a poor score. Also, having a poor employment history, or being unemployed, doesn’t mean you’ve hurt anyone. There are many other ways a prospective tenant can show themselves to be a poor prospect without having hurt anyone.

Also, we force landlords and employers to not discriminate regarding religion and country of origin not because it would not be smart for the landlords to do it if it was legal, but because it is damaging to our society for them to do it.

Once you let them in, they have to be treated as if they are one of us, or our society will be racked with divisions. From many into one isn’t possible. Assimilation grinds to a crawl.

But you want to let in endless millions, even tens or hundreds of millions of people who are not assimilated at all into our culture. Somehow they will just magically become instantaneously Americanized.

fadetogray on February 7, 2016 at 10:52 PM

fadetogray on February 7, 2016 at 10:52 PM

Regardless, all of those factors are related to a tenant’s ability to pay the landlord, whose goal is to make a profit. In the case of a country, the goal is to protect the residents from violence, theft, and fraud. Unless there is evidence of violence, theft, or fraud in the immigrants history, there’s no valid reason to exclude them.

Religion is not a valid reason. Country of origin is not a valid reason. “Hasn’t waited in line long enough” is not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM

Religion is not a valid reason. Country of origin is not a valid reason. “Hasn’t waited in line long enough” is not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM

Oh, also “might compete with Americans for jobs” is DEFINITELY not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:10 PM

Ack. I accidentally clicked on a Taylor Millard post.

eforhan on February 7, 2016 at 11:53 PM

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 10:47 PM

That too. Perhaps I should have specified that he’s not a stupid douche bag.

S. D. on February 8, 2016 at 12:33 AM

If you go from supporting Rand Paul to supporting Bernie Sanders not only were you never pro-liberty, but your very patriotism should be put into question. How anyone can profess love of country yet condemn generation upon generation to total dependency to the government is beyond me.

1redshirtxlg on February 8, 2016 at 3:08 AM

The thing is, this isn’t a thing.

Taylor Millard; dispatching strawmemes one meme at a time.

Arnold Yabenson on February 8, 2016 at 4:02 AM

Religion is not a valid reason. Country of origin is not a valid reason. “Hasn’t waited in line long enough” is not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM

You really do not understand culture, immigration and the purpose of nations.

Any reason is a valid reason for a country to say, “No.”

We look at the world as it is. In the world as it is every country dominated by Islam is an armpit, at best.

That’s a reason to keep out Muslims. You may not like the reason. You may even be right (no, you’re not – you think like a child), but it is a reason, and any reason is valid.

It is our country. It belongs to us. We get to say who comes into it just like you get to say who comes into your house.

fadetogray on February 8, 2016 at 5:22 AM

“End perpetual welfare”? By way of . . . socialism?

Notice that’s a separate entry from the one about “corporate” welfare, so I assume it’s the regular kind.

The thing is, this isn’t a thing.

Taylor Millard; dispatching strawmemes one meme at a time.

Arnold Yabenson on February 8, 2016 at 4:02 AM

Yeah, that “straw-memes” thing makes more sense than that poster on a Facebook page by — a Julie Borowski?

And why is Julie’s Facebook page relevant again? (Does Millard Fillmore have an answer to that?)

Lolo on February 8, 2016 at 5:33 AM

Religion is not a valid reason. Country of origin is not a valid reason. “Hasn’t waited in line long enough” is not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM

How about ’cause we don’t wanna?

Lolo on February 8, 2016 at 5:36 AM

Without going into a quote-fest, there’s the blunt fact that “a society where no one judges you for your personal decisions” is moronic and doomed to fail.

You can’t addle your brain with drugs and copulate with anyone and everyone you want and expect to have a functioning, self-governing population. Libertarianism does not work in an immoral or amoral society.

Unless you have strong families, churches, and non-governmental social groups to ensure there is no vacuum for government to fill, you cannot have a more free and prosperous society. The layabouts, druggies, and broken families of “judge me not” libertarianism are its own worst enemies. They create external problems for everyone else and, invariably, some power-hungry “concerned” zealot aims to bribe them with the public trough and they are too weak to reject it.

BKennedy on February 8, 2016 at 6:56 AM

I think trying to use the government to engage in social engineering to wipe out change certain cultures is only going to engender resent and greater stupidity.
TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 8:04 PM

On that we agree, with a little change on my part.

HonestLib on February 8, 2016 at 7:04 AM

Why would Rand Paul supporters (presumably Libertarians) support a big government Socialist under any rational circumstances?

The only ones who would switch are the ones who don’t know what they’re supposed to believe; and are just looking for some cult following.

And you won’t sway them with any rational argument to leave (or stay) so why bother with this?

gekkobear on February 8, 2016 at 8:14 AM

What you don’t understand about libertarianism is that no life event can shake us from our beliefs. No matter what may go wrong, we feel it is the responsibility of free-acting individuals to sort it out, not the responsibility of government to dictate to us how to live our lives.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 9:33 PM

Why should I believe you when you also stated…

Trump and all of his supporters have convinced me that they are a greater threat to this country and its liberty than any Democrat. We need a leader who will use every power available to crush, destroy, and eliminate these people from this country.

TBSchemer on December 8, 2015 at 3:29 AM

Is that what freedom means to you? Ruling as dictator so you can destroy the lives of those who want something different than yourself? Aren’t YOU dictating how we should live our lives?

dominigan on February 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM

Goldwater actively hated the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, and disowned the party entirely in the 1990s, favoring the Libertarian Party. He would never vote for Ted Cruz.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 7:24 PM

First of all, Barry Goldwater, who actively campaigned for both Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan, would certainly vote for Ted Cruz if he were our nominee. He would vote in the Arizona primary for Ted Cruz out of the remaining field in all likelihood, and certainly out of the top three.

Second, the question isn’t who would Goldwater vote for; the question is who would you, and who should small-l libertarians vote for, if Goldwater was on the ballot. Since Goldwater voted for drug war measures, for capital punishment, for UN and NATO membership, presumably you would say he is off the table, and Gary Johnson therefore deserves libertarian support.

And that is nonsense. Goldwater was the closest candidate to Paul-level libertarianism we have ever seen in a party that can actually take the White House and Congress. And like it or not, Cruz, who has stood up against the drug war, who has stood up against undeclared wars, who has stood up against the Fed and for gold, who has stood up against unbridled executive power, is even closer to Paul-level libertarianism than was Goldwater.

And while a Cruz presidency would be bad for certain LP purists, given how far we have strayed from Liberty, it would in fact be the best thing for Liberty in this land since Calvin Coolidge, and possibly since the Founding itself…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Unless there is evidence of violence, theft, or fraud in the immigrants history, there’s no valid reason to exclude them.

Religion is not a valid reason. Country of origin is not a valid reason. “Hasn’t waited in line long enough” is not a valid reason.

TBSchemer on February 7, 2016 at 11:09 PM

Does Congress have the authority, explicitly stated in the US Constitution, to make rules for who and who not may enter this nation?

Yes, or no…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 9:31 AM

No need for Paul fans to jump ship to the dems. The republicans have lots of socialists to choose from.

Magicjava on February 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM

Any Paul supporter that goes Sanders really doesn’t understand what Paul’s campaign was about.

ProfShadow on February 8, 2016 at 9:34 AM

Sabo AWESOMELY Punked the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Bernie Sanders Concert

http://hausrules.us/sabo-awesomely-punked-the-red-hot-chili-peppers-bernie-sanders-concert

Pork-Chop on February 8, 2016 at 9:36 AM

This thread illustrates several reasons why I consider myself a conservative rather than a libertarian, even though I agree with libertarians approximately as often as I do with conservatives.

Your bakers were treading on the rights of others. When you choose to have your business serve the public you don’t get to discriminate.

This is moronic. If I invested my own money in starting this business, in a building that I’m carrying the lease or the mortgage on, this business is my property, yes?

“Choose to have your business serve the public” my hairy butt. If I have a garage sale in my yard and home, do I not get to chase off the old pervert who is hitting on my 13 year old daughter? Even if the signs I put up said “everybody welcome”?

It’s my property, I should get to choose who I allow there. If that means the Dew Drop Inn in Whityville AL wants to put up a sign saying “No Jigaboos allowed,” I don’t see the problem…

…in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reasons, as I see no problem in a gay bar advertising itself as “100% gay owned and operated.” And I have actually seen that one, in Albuquerque, NM.

Same goes for a Christian not wanting to do your wedding. Same goes for a Jewish deli declining to cater a Nazi rally. Same for not demanding that the BET awards have a bunch of white awardees.

I don’t concede your “right” to demand that I labor on your behalf without my consent. From where I sit, that’s slavery. Why I refuse to consent is beside the point. It could be because your behavior causes me to regard you (accurately or not) as a potential threat, it could be because I’m a racist h8ter, it could be because you remind me of my ex-wife, it could be because I’m secretly gay and don’t want anyone to spot how attracted to you I am. Maybe it’s just because I’m a dick. Whatever, it’s not germane to the issue. It’s my property and my labor, if I don’t want you there I shouldn’t have to put up with you.

Our immigration laws are tyrannical so we should reform them before attempting to enforce such injustice. They are not enforceable and that is a recipe for endless government force and intrusion, such as deportations when it suits the powers that be and border “checkpoints” 100 miles from any border.

This is only slightly less moronic. The US government is paid for by the US taxpayers. Moreover, the citizens of the US are the principles of the contract whereby they delegate authority to the US government. Read the 10th Amendment. Power resides in the citizenry, and any powers not specifically delegated remain with those citizens.

Therefore the US government has no duty, nor any authority, other than to act as the agent of those same citizens. It is not the agent of anyone who is not a citizen. You personally may feel like you owe a particular standard of treatment to others, and you are welcome to indulge that on your own behalf. But that is an individual decision, you don’t get to decide the moral and ethical standard for everyone else and then enforce it at the point of a gun. And “border checkpoints” 100 miles from the border make perfect sense if you concede the need for a border in the first place. The point is to sort out the immigrants you want to keep from the immigrants you want to “throw back.” It would be stupid to make it so that once you’re more than arm’s reach from the border you’re home free, would it not?

GrumpyOldFart on February 8, 2016 at 11:23 AM

Does Congress have the authority, explicitly stated in the US Constitution, to make rules for who and who not may enter this nation?

Yes, or no…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 9:31 AM

Doesn’t matter. As a libertarian, I would expect you to hold liberty higher than law.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 11:31 AM

fadetogray on February 8, 2016 at 5:22 AM

Lolo on February 8, 2016 at 5:36 AM

dominigan on February 8, 2016 at 9:27 AM

blink on February 8, 2016 at 9:36 AM

All we’re doing here is reestablishing, over and over again, that I’m an individualist libertarian, and the lot of you are nationalist conservatives.

Right-wing conservatives believe government power should be used to unify a “home team” and keep out and defeat all “foreign teams.” Libertarians believe each and every one of us is an individual, and the government only exists as a defense agreement to protect a system of liberty within a particular jurisdiction.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 11:43 AM

First of all, Barry Goldwater, who actively campaigned for both Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan, would certainly vote for Ted Cruz if he were our nominee. He would vote in the Arizona primary for Ted Cruz out of the remaining field in all likelihood, and certainly out of the top three.

No, he wouldn’t. In the mid 1990s, Barry Goldwater renounced his affiliation with the Republican Party because he hated the type of evangelical policies and rhetoric that Ted Cruz loves. He admitted to voting Libertarian instead.

When you claim that Goldwater and Reagan would vote for Cruz, you’re only allowing yourself to be duped by a shameless political campaign seeking to hijack their images.

Michael Reagan and Barry Goldwater Jr., sons of those two figures, both endorsed Rand Paul, saying he’s the only one in the Republican field who even comes close to understanding the philosophies of their fathers.

Second, the question isn’t who would Goldwater vote for; the question is who would you, and who should small-l libertarians vote for, if Goldwater was on the ballot. Since Goldwater voted for drug war measures, for capital punishment, for UN and NATO membership, presumably you would say he is off the table, and Gary Johnson therefore deserves libertarian support.

Goldwater renounced all of those positions later in life. He grew more libertarian and less conservative with age and wisdom.

And that is nonsense. Goldwater was the closest candidate to Paul-level libertarianism we have ever seen in a party that can actually take the White House and Congress. And like it or not, Cruz, who has stood up against the drug war, who has stood up against undeclared wars, who has stood up against the Fed and for gold, who has stood up against unbridled executive power, is even closer to Paul-level libertarianism than was Goldwater.

Cruz has NOT stood up against the drug war. He’s gone back and forth over whether it should be a federal or state issue, but has ALWAYS been against legalization. And he’s only put forward paltry criminal justice reform measures, only addressing mandatory minimum sentencing, but ignoring (or even whitewashing) police abuse, discrimination, and asset forfeiture.

And while a Cruz presidency would be bad for certain LP purists, given how far we have strayed from Liberty, it would in fact be the best thing for Liberty in this land since Calvin Coolidge, and possibly since the Founding itself…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Unless he focuses entirely on the issues where he most disagrees with libertarians, such as immigration and foreign policy. His rhetoric suggests he fully intends to do that. Don’t be fooled into settling for the lesser evil when you could vote for an unqualified good.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM

fashionable non-conformist.

son of a preacher man on February 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM

All we’re doing here is reestablishing, over and over again, that I’m an individualist libertarian, and the lot of you are nationalist conservatives.

Right-wing conservatives believe government power should be used to unify a “home team” and keep out and defeat all “foreign teams.” Libertarians believe each and every one of us is an individual, and the government only exists as a defense agreement to protect a system of liberty within a particular jurisdiction.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 11:43 AM

Again, I agree about our disagreement, other than for the obvious wild hyperbole. “Defeat” of the “foreign teams” is not necessary at all. Preventing them from defeating us, on the other hand, is the most important single role of any legitimate government.

Nations are not just “particular jurisdictions,” as I pointed out when the fools were trying to democratize Iraq, which is three separate nations.

Also, it isn’t just “right-wing” conservatives who think our way. It is all conservatives, who follow what is really a centrist doctrine of stability and consistency, not right wing.

fadetogray on February 8, 2016 at 12:17 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Just look at his latest proposal:
Force women to register for the draft.

A real libertarian would seek to ABOLISH the draft, not drag more people into it!

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM

as a libertarian, this is insulting. Bernie is the king of free shit, libertarians are against free shit.

burserker on February 8, 2016 at 12:45 PM

Doesn’t matter. As a libertarian, I would expect you to hold liberty higher than law.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 11:31 AM

To paraphrase Thomas More:

This nation is planted, thick and coast to coast with laws, for a very good reason. Would you chop down those laws to get at the mob who would encroach on our Liberty? And when you had succeeded, and chopped down the last law, and the mob turned against you, where then would you hide, the last of the laws lain flat?

I stand for preservation of law because it is my protection against tyrants. I will try to change laws antithetical to Liberty, but the moment you sneer at the validity of duly prescribed law, you put Liberty at true risk…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 1:11 PM

A real libertarian would seek to ABOLISH the draft, not drag more people into it!

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM

Goldwater supported draft registration. So, by your standards, Goldwater doesn’t make the cut.

Which, I’ll restate, is nonsense…

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 1:14 PM

JohnGalt23,

The deportation and permanent exile of 11 million people is quite tyrannical. Any candidate who campaigns on enforcing rather than repealing those laws is no friend of liberty.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM

The deportation and permanent exile of 11 million people is quite tyrannical what is called for by US law, duly passed by Congress, under unequivocal authority granted it by the US Constitution.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 1:24 PM

Fixed.

The Founders knew that for Liberty to flourish, you had to give the people the ability, through their elected representatives, to control who could, and could not, be admitted to this nation. And Congress has done so, and has, in very detailed fashion, put in place a regimen for dealing with infractions of the laws detailing that naturalization process.

Now, were the Founders who envisioned giving Congress that authority, which they have done while maintaining far and away the most liberal immigration regime on the face of the planet, also anti-Liberty…?

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM

Right-wing conservatives believe government power should be used to unify a “home team” and keep out and defeat all “foreign teams.” Libertarians believe each and every one of us is an individual, and the government only exists as a defense agreement to protect a system of liberty within a particular jurisdiction.

TBSchemer on February 8, 2016 at 11:43 AM

What you either don’t get or are deliberately ingoring is that someone who is not a US citizen is not a party to that agreement. Moreover, someone who deliberately breaks US law to get here has specifically repudiated that agreement. They demonstrated before the offer was even made that they have no intention of abiding by their end of it.

So why is anyone who is party to that agreement responsible for making sure they get all the benefits of that agreement? Much less all of us?

GrumpyOldFart on February 8, 2016 at 4:25 PM