Friday, April 4, 2014

Salon's hit piece on Rand Paul - an analysis by The Liberty Bard

By the headline of this article I could tell that is was another hit piece on Libertarianism. As such I felt the need to read the article, dissect it and point out their lies and flagrantly wrong economic analysis. Any comment in quotes is added by me. Commentary noted in bold is my response to their idiotic claims. JJ The Liberty Bard.
 
10 reasons Americans should be wary of Rand Paul’s libertarianism — especially millennials (Hear that millennials? Don't listen to those mean old libertarians who want to take over the government and then leave you alone)


He's right that America's youth is disaffected, but it's precisely his economic policies that are responsible (I'm not exactly sure how many of Rand Paul's economic policies have been implemented by the Obama administration since 2008 but it's your lie you can tell it however you want to)
http://media.salon.com/2014/01/rand_paul_mtp.jpgEnlargeRand Paul on "Meet the Press," January 26, 2014 (Credit: NBC News)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.



Commentary: Obviously the liberals are scared of Rand Paul's popularity. His message of liberty and individual freedom paired with smaller government is not something that their controlling little statist minds could live with. How would they be able to force others to do what they want without the implied threat of the force of government to back them up?
 
A Libertarian at the helm would be their worst nightmare. The Liberals believe that government is the cure to all of society’s ills, regardless of the fact that most of the problems that they are trying to solve were created by them in the first place. The title of the article tries to place the blame for the failure of liberal policies on the libertarian philosophy. It goes to show when you have no valid ideas of your own your only play is to demonize people like Rand Paul who have actual solutions to our country's problems by advocating and implementing free market reforms and principles. So away we go...
AlterNet


Republican Senator Rand Paul has been making a big play for millennials lately, most notably by taking his civil liberties pitch to colleges around the country. Paul has got the right idea when he says his party must "evolve, adapt or die" (although I think the first two are virtually the same thing)(actually one starts with an "e", the other starts with an "a"). Katie Glueck of Politico wrote that "The Kentucky senator drew a largely friendly reception at the University of California-Berkeley as he skewered the intelligence community."

Sen. Paul spoke of "dystopian nightmares" and added that "your rights, especially your right to privacy, are under assault." Paul also said he perceives "fear of an intelligence community that’s drunk with power, unrepentant and uninclined to relinquish power."

Virtually all of the other politicians taking that stand come from the left side of the political spectrum. They include figures like independent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. Rand Paul is not like these other defenders of civil liberties.(No he is an evil Libertarian who doesn’t believe it is the government business to fix the problems that they created or police themselves – crazy right?)

Rand Paul, like his father, prefers to package his fairly old-school brand of economic conservatism under the trendier name of "libertarianism." That’s not just a labeling change. It also means Paul has paired his retrograde economic ideas with a very outspoken stance against militarism and the espionage state. It’s a mixture that Paul hopes can make inroads with groups that are not traditionally Republican voters.



Commentary: According to them Libertarianism is new and trendy, just a new way to package old conservative ideas under a new banner. The reality is that Libertarianism is based upon the principle of a non aggression policy and follows Austrian economic theory as opposed to Keynesian economic theory. There are several very intelligent economists such as Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises and Frederick Hayek who have written extensively on Libertarian theory since the early 20th Century. Also Henry Hazlitt wrote some great books based on Libertarian theory as well.
 


Without State paid economists and politicians advocating Keynesian economic theory the State would lose it's ability to print money for free and give it to the big banks for close to zero interest and then loan it out to us plebs at higher rates. The State would lose its ability to fund wars and police the rest of the globe without being able to rely on a fiat currency where money is not backed by gold and can be printed by a Central monetary authority at a moment’s notice. This is the Statists biggest fear that they would lose their monopoly over money and not be able to buy votes through welfare programs and fund their never-ending wars without raising taxes on the population. This is the real reason why they are afraid of the Libertarian philosophy.
 
Paul’s play for millennials was almost inevitable (I know right, he dares to try to spread the message of Liberty to the younger generation). As a recent Pew study reported, that generation’s disaffection with the two-party system appears to be at record levels. (not to mention everyone else) Fifty percent of millennials polled said that they do not associate themselves with either party, (the other 50% were too stoned to answer at all) which is the highest percentage recorded thus far. It’s also a 10 point jump from their equivalent age group’s level of political affiliation only seven years ago.

But Rand Paul gravely misunderstands the nature of that political disaffection. Yes, millennials feel alienated toward political and other institutions. They have a right to feel that way. As Joshua Holland says, millennials didn’t abandon these institutions. The institutions abandoned them.

But Rand Paul and libertarianism are not the answer. (What was the question again?) His economic strategy can be summed up in a quota used for one of his bills: "remove the shackles of big government by reducing taxes, regulations, and burdensome union work requirements." (Oh the humanity!)

In other words, more of the same conservative philosophy that got us in this mess in the first place. (Wait what?) Here are 10 reasons why millennials should be extremely wary of the senator from Kentucky.



Commentary: The powers that be understand Ron Paul's and his son Rand’s popularity amongst the millennials and it scares them. They know if people truly understand Libertarian philosophy it would take over the system quickly so they distort the Libertarian message every chance they get to confuse people. The fact is, most people just want to be left along to live their life and pursue their own interests. This is the heart of the Libertarian message and it scares the daylights out of the Statists, the people who love to use the State to impose their own philosophy upon the rest of us.

They say that the millennials feel alienated by the two party system, which is kind of a broad statement. They should feel alienated as should we all, as the State has not represented the people’s interest in many years! The real issue is that the younger generation has access to more information than any generation throughout history has ever had. They are beginning to awaken and see through the lies of both the Neocons and the Liberals. They understand the horrors of war and the lies our State has told us to justify said wars in the past. They don't have to accept the false narrative promoted by the mainstream media as they have access to the alternative media outlets which provide a different interpretation of world events that the powers that be promote through their relentless propaganda machinations.

They are beginning to understand that War is the Health of the State and that they have been sold out and put into debt chains by the ruling political parties of the last 50 years. If you aren't angry about our political system then you simply are not informed. They are becoming informed and they are angry and they are looking for alternatives. As Ron Paul has stated on many occasions, Freedom is Popular.

The Statists are scared that Rand Paul's real message is going to catch on and we may actually get a President in office who favors the reduction of State power. First they ridicule you then they attack you right? It reminds me of one of my favorite sayings about Libertarian's - We want to take over the government and leave you alone.

This hit piece reeks of desperation and is a good sign for those of us who really want to speak truth to power and expose the liars and economic morons for what they are - naked emperors.
1. His philosophy of deregulation created your jobs problem.
Rand Paul loved to preach the gospel of deregulation. He went so far as to proclaim that Obama was putting his "boot heel" on the neck of—get this—British Petroleum. Why? Because BP was being asked to bear part of the cost for the oil spill it created.

That’s right. Rand Paul believes "regulation" is evil, even when it’s only asking a reckless private corporation to clean up its own messes.

Wall Street deregulation crashed the economy in 2008. As a result, the millennial generation is entering the job market at the worst time in modern history. Millennials are facing record levels of unemployment and under-employment. What’s Rand Paul’s solution? More of the same.



Commentary: Here they refer to deregulation as a great evil. The markets must be regulated and deregulation is the cause of the of the "jobs problem." Please reread the above and explain to me the leap in logic to correlate deregulation with the loss of jobs in this country. There are many reasons for the loss of jobs in this country but the main reason is that we allowed our manufacturing base to erode through trade agreements enforced through the WHO (World Health Organization) a branch of the UN. These trade agreements like NAFTA were signed by prior administrations and I don't see how deregulation of markets has anything at all to do with our job problem. Our current administration is currently in the process of signing another trade agreement which is referred to as "The NAFTA of the East" which is a trade pact with Asian countries that will continue the gutting of the US manufacturing base.

The attempt to place the blame on deregulation is rich when our own attorney general announced that we cannot even attempt to hold our banks accountable as they are too big and it may cause a systematic crash if we were to hold them accountable. Is this the type of regulation that these Statists think is so important?

Wall Street deregulation did not cause the crash of 2008. The crash was caused by the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. They printed too much money into the system which caused a boom in the mid 2000’s and then naturally a bust occurred in 2008. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and this was the reaction to loose Fed monetary policy.

I don't want to put words in Rand's mouth, but here is what I believe an accurate Libertarian policy would be concerning regulation. First, I believe that the too big to fail banks would be broken up similar to AT&T in the 1980's. This would take away their monopoly privileges and force them to compete against each other. Second, I think we would want to end the free money party held by the Fed which gives the big banks a competitive advantage and allows them to make money hand over fist practically risk free(too big too fail, remember?). I say risk free because if they do make a mistake again they know that they will either be bailed out or bailed in. (see Cyprus)

These two policy changes alone would force competition and allow the failed banks to go bankrupt. This would result in the money flowing to the well run banks, not the corporate crony banks that have bought this administration. Thus, there would be less need for regulation of this industry as the free market forces would allow the good banks to succeed and the bad banks to fail and the consumer would choose which banks that they would affiliate with and that would determine how banks would fare. Libertarianism at its core is about giving the power to determine the success or failure of a business back to the consumer by allowing them to vote with their wallet.

One more point on regulation. Is this guy really serious? Have we not seen the most fines against banks in the past five years for dishonest an unethical behavior (some might even go so far as to call it fraud) and yet not one executive has gone to jail? Give me a break, the regulators are part of the problem and the current regulatory structure is not effective. If you don’t agree with that statement then please ask Jon Corzine what he thinks about regulations. (Actually I’m sure he loves them as the lax regulations allowed him to get off scot free after stealing billions of his depositors monies. But we can’t have big time Obama bundlers going to jail now can we?)

The fact is the fault lies squarely on the Obama and Bush administrations for allowing these banks to make bad bets and then bailing them out thus creating a moral hazard that no amount of regulations will solve. More regulations will only decrease the ability of smaller banks to enter the banking business to compete against these Goliath's like JPM, BOA, WF and HSBC and allow them to continue their monopoly practices.

Great read by Michael Synder on the deindustrialization of the US
 


2. He doesn’t believe in jobs programs.
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.



Commentary: Government does not and never has created jobs, any government job is paid for through taxation, therefore it is a net negative to the economy. Government’s only role is to uphold the law. Job programs are a way to buy votes. It is not the responsibility of the government to ensure full employment, nor should it be the mandate of the Fed. Yet the Fed and the State are constantly talking about what policies they can enact to get to full employment.

There is only one way to increase employment and that is by providing an economic environment where people are free to pursue their dreams by starting their own business. Job growth has always come from small business not big corporations. The Statists have created so many barriers to entry in today's environment that it's very hard for someone to step into any existing market and create a new business to compete against the established market leaders. Why? Red tape, regulations, bureaucracy, high taxes, payroll taxes, licensing, continuing education, diversity training, Sarbanes-Oxley, the list goes on and on but I think you get the idea.

So they are advocating "job programs to help the millennials". Why should the government pick winners and losers? Why should we advocate for programs that only help one segment of society? Yet once again, they create the problems then offer up solutions, to get the sheep to follow their dastardly delusions.

Infrastructure investment is another boondoggle. The State will always go over budget, will enrich their preferred companies which always provide some type of incentives back to their political friends either directly or indirectly. After all that is why they get the contract and not someone else.
 
The Rothbardian solution, which is what I would advocate for would be to privatize the infrastructure system completely. Read "For a New Liberty" for a detailed description of how old Murray would handle this issue. It's not as complicated as you think. (You can find an audio version of For a New Liberty on www.mises.org )


3. He thinks "tax cuts" create jobs.
There’s a simple answer to that, once we remember that the wealthy and corporations are paying lower taxes than at any time in modern history.

So where are the jobs?

Rand Paul’s solution is to eliminate the income tax altogether. That would be a red letter day for billionaires, millionaires and corporations. It would spell the end of vital services for the rest of us, in everything from public health to military defense.

Create jobs? Not so much.



Commentary: Wow talk about an alarmist response, the end of vital services! Does this author not realize that we did not even have a progressive Federal tax until 1913 and before that throughout the 1800's we had incredible economic growth that was off the charts compared to all other nations throughout history? I wonder if the author knows that the Fed income tax started off as a temporary 1% tax? I wonder if the author understands that the amount of Federal tax paid by us is fairly close to the amount of interest the US pays the Fed every year? Some people even go so far as to think that it wasn't a coincidence that the Fed was created at the same time as the Federal Income tax.
 
Here again they go straight for the "evil rich people" angle. Oh those rich bastards and corporations aren't paying their fair share. Even if we collected 100% of everything these rich people and corporations made it still wouldn't be enough to pay off our current debt along with the unfunded liabilities we owe. Estimates range from $60 trillion (with a T) to over $200 trillion (with TWO L's). Here is a really good video by Tony Robbins that explains the real tax situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jboTeS9Okak




The reality is if we were to eliminate the Fed income tax, the SS and Medi tax and put all that money back in people's paychecks, this country would immediately experience an economic boom of epic proportions. But then how could we get the money to pay for government? There are a couple of options. We could make payments voluntary. If you want to support the troops then go right ahead and support them with your own money. If you feel the need to help out the less fortunate then go right ahead support them with your own money. People would have to use their own money instead of someone else's money however to fund their pet projects. I know right, what a novel concept. But let’s not forget how much more disposable income people would have if all of those taxes were added back to the bottom line of their paycheck.

Personally I believe that an appropriate libertarian response would favor a tariff system that did not favor any industry over any other. I would try to replace the 16th amendment (income tax) with a tariff amendment that stated a flat rate would be paid on any product imported into the US regardless of whether the company was American or not and that the rate could be changed, however it could not be modified in any other way to favor one industry or company over another. We have the largest consumer society the world has ever seen, we should force other countries to pay for the privilege of selling their products to us. The United States biggest strength at this moment in time is our purchasing power.

This would have two main effects. It would make Chinese junk that we buy billions worth each year much more expensive which would reduce the trade deficit. It would also force American manufacturing to come back to America to avoid the tariff and eliminate the competitive advantage gained by cheap third world labor.
 
4. Those "burdensome union work requirements" gave us Saturdays and Sundays off.
Without unions we would still be working six or seven days a week with no overtime pay. The weekend as we know it wouldn’t exist if we lived in Rand’s world.

Neither would paid vacations, the minimum wage, health and disability benefits, and quite a few other things a lot of working people count on to help them get by.



Commentary: Again they just blast a lie straight out into the internet and hope it sticks. Does anyone really believe that without unions we would still be working six and seven day weeks? Also apparently unions gave us paid vacations and other perks. Of course the free market had absolutely nothing to do with these workplace improvements. I mean there could not have possibly been any company that would have offered a better work environment in order to attract and keep more quality employees could there? What a complete joke this statement is and just shows the appalling lack of knowledge of how the real world works. This is nothing but a straight up lie that has been parroted so many times that people actually believe it.

Free market competition creates productivity increases which in turn create an environment where we don't have to work as hard. Then we decide as workers, hey you know, me and my family are no longer on the verge of starvation and my quality of life has improved to the point where I am willing to make a trade off. Rather than working 7 days a week and having no extras like paid vacations, health insurance, 401k's, I'm willing to trade some of the money I am making for these perks.

Employers were not forced by unions to make all of these concessions. The free market forced employers to make these types of concessions in order to keep quality workers and remain competitive. But the point that these economic morons miss, is that the workers had to give up some pay in order to get these privileges. That is how it works in the real world. It cost a business money and productivity for them to pay for a worker's health insurance and other perks therefore they have to reduce the salary in order to cover the extra costs.
5. Civil rights for African Americans and other minorities wouldn’t exist.
Rand Paul believes businesses have the right to discriminate against minorities, or against pretty much anybody, because he thinks that’s part of their First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment, as most of you may know, reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There’s nothing in there about "businesses that want to force women like Rosa Parks to stand at the back of the bus when there are empty seats in the front of the bus," or "lunch counters that won’t serve black folks."

No, the First Amendment doesn’t say that. But Rand Paul thinks it does. He also says he would’ve voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s a newsflash for Sen. Paul: Millennials come in all races, religions, genders and sexual orientations. They value their rights just as much as Americans of other generations do.



Commentary: This is obviously a tough subject to defend as it is easy for Statists to attack you based on your response to this question. But you know what? I'm tired of anyone who disagrees with policy being labeled racists for pointing out the obvious. The obvious point to make is that the Jim Crow laws, were just that, they were laws put into place by the State. The State is the one that wrote laws permitting slavery and discrimination. Therefore the only thing needed to end these disgusting violations of natural human rights was to end these discriminatory laws. That's it. It was not necessary to codify a new set of laws that gave special privileges to any group of people within our society.

Now let's think about if this were to happen today. Let's say we allowed businesses to discriminate against someone based on their skin color or sexual preference for instance. Let's say that some bar in the middle of Redneckville had a sign on the door disallowing certain people from entering their establishment. How quick would that sign be flashed all over twitter and instagram? Would you eat there? Would your friends eat there? Would anyone patronize an establishment like that? Would people organize to stand out front with signs to let others know that they shouldn't give their money to an establishment that discriminates in such a fashion?

Well maybe some other backward rednecks might still patronize that business but that probably wouldn't be enough for them to pay the bills and soon they would be out of business wouldn't they? This is the Libertarian argument as to why a bill that gives favoritism of one segment of society over another is wrong. The actions of individuals will use the free market to ensure that businesses who want to discriminate against any group within society will know that their disgusting and immoral views will not allow them to operate their business at a profit.
6. He wants to eliminate Social Security.
Because, you know, the "free market" has done so well in protecting Americans’ financial security when they’re disabled or elderly.

Many millennials are collecting Social Security survivor benefits, like Rand Paul compatriot Paul Ryan did. Or disability benefits. Or they have parents and grandparents who are collecting retirement benefits.

Most millennials will live to collect those benefits themselves—if Rand Paul doesn’t get to them first.



Commentary: The truth is social security is a Ponzi scheme. It relies on the contributions of newer participants to pay for the funds due the long time participants. That is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. The money that has been paid by all of us into said SS fund has already been taken out of that fund and replaced with IOUs. In other words, the money that is mandatorily taken out of your paycheck before you get it and promised to you upon retirement has already been spent on something else. A system structured like that is doomed to fail eventually. Rand Paul knows this as do most Libertarians.

The problem is when Russia and China finally get together and end the Petrodollar system which has enable us to spend beyond our means for decades it will cause all of the US dollars held in reserve funds in different countries throughout the world to flood back into the US Treasury at once and they would have to be paid in full. This will cause the Fed to print money like crazy to pay for all of these returning dollars and it will create a high level of inflation. When this happens the Fed Gov will not be able to meet it's obligations to pay SS, Medicare and other welfare programs. Or if they do the money paid will not be sufficient to cover the rising prices of all goods. This will create massive riots and unrest throughout America. Austrian Economists and Tea Party peeps understand this. Therefore we want to change the system before it's too late. It's really that simple.
7. He wants to eliminate Medicare, Obamacare, and even the private insurance you get through your employer.
"The fundamental reason why Medicare is failing is why the Soviet Union failed," said Sen. Paul. "Socialism doesn’t work."

Unfortunately for Paul, Medicare is not failing. It has lower overhead than private insurance, lower cost than private insurance, and a lower rate of inflation than private insurance. It is the most successful, and the most popular insurance program in the country.

But as flawed as it is, private health insurance is critical to a lot of people’s physical and financial health. Rand Paul’s so right wing he doesn’t even like that. "We need to get insurance out of the way and let the consumer interact with their doctor the way they did basically before World War II," said Paul. (A lot of people didn’t interact with doctors at all before World War II; the morbidity and mortality statistics show it.)

Speaking as an ophthalmologist, which he is, Paul also said this: "If you think you have the right to healthcare, you are saying basically that I am your slave." Sen. Paul is not just a conservative, he someone with a poor grasp of concepts like slavery. Healthcare providers are in fact paid under all systems of public and private insurance. They are also free to change professions, take a day off, set their own schedules, and do any number of things that are not associated with the practice of slavery.

Millennials need to know that medical care will be available when they need it. That’s not just something they want. It’s a right.



Commentary: First off, medical care is not a right. Please show me in the constitution or the bill of rights where free or reduced medical care is listed. Second, Medicare is failing as the unfunded liabilities due on the future bill for Medicare recipients is in the tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars. This is another political boondoggle, a way to buy votes and is not sustainable long-term.

Don't you love how the economically illiterate authors of these types of articles always make blanket statements like "Medicare is not failing". It is the most successful, blah, blah blah. They give no thought to the future obligations they just focus on what is going on right now which is backed by phony money. Just look at a pie chart of the Fed Gov spending and see how much of the pie Medicare and SS occupy. It's a large part of the pie.

The Libertarian view is that we should allow doctors to charge patients whatever price they would like to charge and to even provide indigent care if they want to. But instead, if they even opt to participate in Medicare they are told by the Statists what they have to charge for each procedure. This of course causes many doctors not to even want to participate in the program which limits the patient’s choices of doctors.

At its base this is simply another redistribution scheme where the people who worked hard and saved money for retirement are forced into a system where they are charged more money that their poorer contemporaries. The rich subsidize the poor, yet once again. Anytime, you see that it is mandatory to join a certain program then it is obvious that the program could not stand on it's own economically without force.

In essence the Libertarian position is to allow doctors to choose what they want to charge, allow consumers to choose which doctors they want based on a myriad of factors including cost and take out the damn middlemen who are driving up the cost. Ever notice how you can't find out how much a medical procedure will cost until after it's over and you get the bill? That's what poker players like to call "a tell".
8. He wants to eliminate Roe v. Wade and have a woman’s right to choose decided by politicians at the state level.
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?

It may come as a surprise to Sen. Paul to learn that a great many millennials are, in fact, women.

The Supreme Court has established that a woman’s right to choose is constitutionally protected. Since then that right has been eroded in a thousand different ways at the state level. Rand Paul would remove this right forever, turning this fundamental principle of autonomy into a campaign issue to be decided by right-wing career politicians.

Way to go, "Mr. Civil Liberties." And about that …



Commentary: If the issue were given back to the States, then each State could determine how they would handle the abortion issue based upon what the people in that particular state voted for and people would have the option to either relocate to a different state or travel across state lines if they choose to have an abortion and wanted to go to a state that allowed this. This is consistent with our Constitutional mandate and it's just a way to put some power back in the hands of the States as opposed to the Federal government.

People have a natural right to do with their body what they please. People also have a right to council against bad choices that may come back to haunt them later in life. I personally would never council anyone to get an abortion and would advise strongly against it however if someone chooses to get an abortion they are the one's who in my belief will have to answer to God. They don't have to answer to me.

I'm all for anything that takes power away from Fed Gov, even if I don't necessarily believe that States will make any better choices, it's truly the same system but I think the Libertarian philosophy supports decentralization at every level and on every issue.
9. He’s not as strong and advocate for civil liberties as he seems.
At least Rand Paul is uncompromising in his defense of civil liberties, right? Well, not so much. Consider this quote:
"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."

"It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic," says Rand Paul. But it’s clear that he’s only talking about a certain kind of terrorism. A lot of Tea Party leaders have "threatened the violent overthrow of the government." Does Rand Paul think "they should be deported or put in prison"? Or are his brand of civil liberties only for white conservatives?



Commentary: Here they try to link Tea Party leaders to terrorism which has become a common meme over the past several years. Do you know of any Tea Party leaders who have advocated and threatened the violent overthrow of the govt? The one's I listen to are advocating for a peaceful revolution though the spreading of our ideas and ideals. Most of us realize that if we tried to go against Fed Gov in a violent conflict, not only would it turn public opinion against us, but we would lose and lose bad. We are not the ones advocating theft and force, they are. Don't forget that.

As far as the profiling question goes, it's only common sense to profile, which is why Israel does it. If it works for Israel, which it obviously does, a small country surrounded by enemies, then it should be good enough for us. This is another prime example of a desire to be PC getting in the way of common sense and creating a burdensome process for flying in the form of the TSA. Is he really arguing that it makes sense to pay down children and grandmothers in airport lines?
10. He’s picked the wrong oppressor.
Rand Paul’s brand of libertarian believes that "liberty" is freedom from an oppressive government. (Hint - It is) But in a democracy the government is us. (Tell it to Snowden and Manning) The real oppressors in today’s economic and political system are the corporations which increasingly dominate all aspects of our public and private lives. (Wait what what?)


Commentary:


ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THIS STATEMENT RIGHT HERE INVALIDATES EVERYTHING THIS MORON HAS TO SAY.

This conclusion is just completely insane. Yes the oppressors are not the different alphabet agencies of the Fed Gov who have been committing abuses against the American people by the power we vested in them. No the real enemy is corporations like Google, Disney, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Dell, Pixar, Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin and all the other companies that are listed on the Dow and the S&P, you know the one's who want us to buy their products?

In this author’s view "the enemy" is not the different departments of the State like the CIA and the NSA who collect our emails and phone calls and assassinate people. It’s not the rogue politicians trying to take away American’s rights to bear arms. It’s not Health and Human services forcing us to buy insurance. It’s not the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy of inflation that steals our hard earned money stealthily and gradually so the majority of boobus Americanus don’t notice. It's not the police state or the bureaucratic departments like the EPA, who fine people thousands for cutting trees in their own back yard or the IRS who investigates and fines people with a different political view then they. No it’s the big bad corporations who are the "real oppressors in today’s economic and political system". Does the author really believe this?

Corporations are not the enemy. Why? As consumers we can vote with the power of our purse if we don’t like a particular corporations policies or more importantly their products or services. What is he even talking about here? Notice how the author doesn’t name any particular corporations, just corporations in general. Methinks this author has been watching a little too much Batman. I guess he must be referring to Bain right?

RESIST THE IDIOCY - NO MATTER WHAT!!!
 
Rand Paul doesn’t have much to say about that. (no one with half a brain has anything to say about the evil corporations being the oppressors because they aren’t!) We applaud his stand against drone murders by the US government, but where is his stand against the kind of espionage Amazon and other corporations could use through the use of unregulated drones in the United States? (haha rofl – this is the argument?) We admire his stand against the NSA, but where is an equally courageous stand against invasions of privacy by corporations like Google? (Here I thought it was the NSA forcing Google to give them access with the threat of force, guess I got that one backwards) (For more on that topic, see our interview with Yasha Levine.)

Rand Paul would have us turned against the "oppression" of the Democratic process, while turning us over to the real oppression of the Corporate State. That’s not fighting for liberty. It’s fighting for corporations. (How so?)

Underneath all the freedom jargon, Rand Paul’s pushing the same kind of economic conservatism that has increasingly dominated our political discourse over the last 40 years. (So it’s not progressive policy that got us into this mess? Ok got it.) He’s resolutely opposed to all of the civil rights advances of the last 50 years, and to any of the government interventions that could make things better for millennials and other Americans now. (Because government solutions always work so great.)

Rand Paul wants more of the same tax cuts (giving them back their own profits) we’ve already given to his billionaires (only the Republican ones though, apparently like the evil Koch brothers) and corporations (again not sure which corporations, but everyone knows corporations are evil). He wants more of the deregulation that ruined the economy in 2008 (not true) and has caused so much harm to the environment. (So deregulation caused an oil spill, who knew?)

How’s that working out for you? (It’s not going very well but that is due to the current administration’s socialist tendencies, not to anything Rand or any other Libertarian has done)

Feel free to admire Rand Paul’s stands on civil liberties and military action (I will and I do), as selective as those stands may be (yes because he has been such a flip flopper). Then look for politicians who represent the full spectrum of your moral and economic beliefs (Just make sure that they are socialists). Better yet, become those politicians (but read Rothbard, Hazlitt and Von Mises first please). We need your talents and your energy, to make right what previous generations (in the Paul family and elsewhere) have gotten so tragically wrong.



Commentary: Welcome to 1984. Rand Paul is now responsible for all the mistakes of the Obama and Bush administrations. I guess the whole blame Bush thing got old so now we are going to blame Paul. And don’t forget war is peace, freedom is slavery, truth is lies, cowardice bravery, ignorance strength, debt is prosperity, and honest politicians are now quite a rarity.