-12 votes

Why a lot of people on DailyPaul aren't actually Libertarian

A lot of people on here claim they are "Libertarian" and all for the idea of freedom; freedom of choice and the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm someone else.

There has been a lot of controversy and differing opinions regarding Rand Paul's recent endorsement of Mitt Romney. Some of us think it was a brilliant and absolutely necessary political move while others think it was a compromise that should not have been made. Regardless of what you think about it, stop trying to control Rand Paul. His endorsement is his own, he can endorse whomever he wants. You are able to endorse whomever you want to for POTUS, Rand is entitled to the exact same. Regardless of what his motivations were, in a free society Rand has the same rights as everyone else, and for you to attack him or anyone else for their opinions makes you the virtual opposite of a Libertarian because you are trying to control the actions of another while reserving the freedom to act as you wish in the same regard.

Criticize his decision if you wish, but at the end of the day his opinion is his own and he is entitled to it just as you are. Stop being so hypocritical, no one cares if you will never vote for Rand Paul now because you don't understand his strategy or you don't agree with it. Everyone is tired of these post after post after post of people b*tching and analyzing his decision. It is obviously going to be a major issue within the movement, let's agree to disagree and move forward. It's his opinion and his endorsement, he can do whatever he wants to and it can't be wrong; just as your own opinion about something can't be wrong.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm no Libertarian. I am a

I'm no Libertarian. I am a Republican on a mission. And Proud.

Cool! and i am non-party

Cool! and i am non-party looking for people with a Ron Paul platform. Digging the Libertarian thought and sound money Austrian economics, free trade ride.

Libertarianism means that you

Libertarianism means that you can do what you want without government interfering in it, and to some degree, it means government will protect you from individuals trying to interfere in your business.

Libertarianism doesn't mean you are free from [b]criticism[/b] of your actions.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

True, as long as that

True, as long as that criticism is based on concrete facts as you would expect in a society based on individual rights and it's protection on it's citizenry. (Like the right to face your accusers) This is the direction our American society is heading, democracy and force initiated by the masses based on irony, false pretenses as a way to initiate extortion and coercion.

I disagree on your point that Libertarianism is doing what you want, that is not true. It is the most transparent form of peaceful practice there is (politically speaking), it seeks to defend that which is rightfully yours, your life and liberty upheld by a nations law.

I disagree. If you want to

I disagree. If you want to criticize someone, criticize someone, and if you think their criticism is weak, criticize their criticism. If you want to sue them, THEN you need concrete facts or whatever.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I'm not disagreeing with

I'm not disagreeing with anyone! I am just stating my belief in Libertarian ideals. If you are having a rational discussion with someone based on criticism than go ahead, have a cup of coffee or beer or whatever and debate that's fine you would be philosophical with your peer. (Remember it's not actually about winning it to grow on it) it's about reasoning. I think i see where you are going with your criticism, i think it looks more towards the conflictive side of reasoning, the my way or highway and that reminds me of neocons, hell over!

Fiduciary Relation

you wrote - "You are able to endorse whomever you want to for POTUS, Rand is entitled to the exact same". agreed. now to the analyzing & what you call bitching. Rand's first qualification in politics is that he is Ron Paul's son, and this helped him gain confidence & trust of Ron's supporters. When Rand publicly endorses Romney at this stage - friends would Not call it Liberty but Betrayal. It is admitted that Ron's supporters have /had No binding contract with Rand, but having the nature of a trust. a Fiduciary relation was damaged /broken, hence the feeling of let-down, and the criticism.

This is 100% opinion

This is your opinion though, others may disagree.

Great Chorus.

you are right, and I will not disagree with your opinion. My tiny opinion above, is part of a big chorus, = on DP and echoed on other sites where Ron Paul is held in great respect, e.g. Lew-Rockwell, Info-Wars, RT-Tv, etc.

How silly...

... "Some of us think it was a brilliant and absolutely necessary political move while others think it was a compromise that should not have been made."

Some of "us" are brilliant, hey? The Any-one-but-Obama campaign is desperate for grassroots support... go lend a hand, while we fight the revolution. Keep you brilliance to yourself. It only exposed you naivete.

Plano TX

Uhhh

Read that one again. I said some of us think Rand made a brilliant decision, not "some of us are brilliant." Stop getting so defensive.

Rand Paul wants to be Heir to the Ron Paul Legacy

Rand Paul had a choice between principle and politics. He chose to be a politician. The only reason to cast your vote for Rand is because youre voting against the other guy. The Ron Paul legacy is one of choosing principle over politics. Thats why I am here. Isnt that why you are here? Thats also why Rand will never get the cash :$.

"Everyone is tired" Everyone?

"Everyone is tired"

Everyone? I didn't know you spoke for me. This whole discussion is mental masturbation. Rand made his choice, now, each of us need to make our own choice.

"(no one) cares if you will never vote for Rand Paul now (because) you don't understand his strategy"

Poorly worded straw man, I know you can do better.

I take it you work for Fox News

Your ability to take things out of context and spin them is one of a kind. So everyone isn't tired of this nonstop arguing between ourselves? Maybe you for some reason like all the tension between supporters, from my understanding most people do not.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Look it up, throwing around a term without understanding it gives you no credibility. And you conveniently left "or don't agree with it" out of that last quote to try to support your statement, Fox News at its finest.

We're libertarians,

not Libertarians. And we think for ourselves. We did not spending our hard earned money, time, and possibly risk future retribution for nothing. If we wanted to belong to the political theater we would be supporting one side of the left/right dichotomy. We are obviously not trying to change Rand. I did not trust him from the start. And then, to have Ms. Penny Freedman come right out and tell us we are 'political capital' is a bit disheartening, to say the least.

If all you magic thinkers want to avoid reality than do it. You are the ones with all the threads bashing the realists.

I have been worried for the delegates from the beginning. I just hope these heroic folks keep hanging in there without Rand/Romney.

Rand's main 'similarity' with Romney was 'family values'. Ha! What kind of son would do this to his father. What a moron.

I GUESS I'M NOT LIBERTARIAN

Because i don't like being taken to the cleaners by the same so called candidate twice in 4 years.I guess i'm not libertarian because i've got sense enough to know when i've been had,and guts enough to admit it.let me tell you something,my grandfather served with an infantry regiment in world war 1,my father was a Navy medic in the pacific theater of world war 2 as well as in Korea.my Brother served in Vietnam in the Air Force,and i served in the Air Force in the late 70's.i don't think any of you are in any position to question my patriotism or my libertarianism just because i'm angry over this deal as i should be.if you had sense enough you would be too.

Some see things as they are and say why,but i dream things that never were and say why not. Robert F. Kennedy

Labels == Sheeples

Be independent.

Not Libertarian, etc.

yep.

but people like badges. its makes them feel good about themselves. it makes them feel like "they belong". people are generally afraid to "not belong".

Here come the Rand hating trolls trying to divide everyone..

Everyone take cover!

Well to be fair, Rand is NOT

Well to be fair, Rand is NOT a Libertarian. He has stated this himself, so i'm not sure where you are trying to get with this since your title states that the people on this site are not Libertarian?!

Just a fact i'm throwing out there.

I have no idea....

I have no idea how some people can think that libertarianism somehow means you can't share your opinion with others.

That is just insane.

You are free to say whatever you want to anyone, you just can't use force against them.

Rand is free to think or say whatever he wants, but he is not free from the opinions of other people.

We don't have the right to be free of criticism, criticism is just the thoughts of others, we cannot own the thoughts of others, so we have no rights to them.

We each have a right to share our own opinion, but we don't have the right to not have someone else's opinion shared with us. Rights do not conflict.

We all are able to express our opinions to each other, none of us have the right to use force keep others from sharing their opinions.

Of course we also have property rights, and if a property owner doesn't want you on their property for any reason, including your speech, they have a right to kick you off their property, but not use force against you solely because of your speech, only to remove you from their property.

The offense in the above example, would be trespassing, not speech.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Difference between you and I

You want the freedom to tell someone else that their opinion is wrong and to tell them that your opinion is right. I simply want the freedom to have my own opinion and to allow others to have theirs. I win.

You have no right to prevent someone from sharing their opinion.

How would your prevent them from sharing their opinion?

Government?

You are sharing your opinion right now, the same as I am.

You are proving yourself wrong in the process of acting.

It's called a performative contradiction.

As you are sharing your opinion right now, others have the same right as you do.

Everyone has the same Natural Rights, they aren't exclusively yours.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Again, the difference between you and I

You want the freedom to tell someone else that their opinion is wrong and to tell them that your opinion is right. I simply want the freedom to have my own opinion and to allow others to have theirs.

This isn't my opinion, it is what you stated previously. You stated that you are permitted to tell others that their opinions are wrong, while I stated that I am entitled to my own opinion and you are entitled to yours. I am not going to go around telling people that Rand's decision was the right one, and if they think otherwise they are wrong, but you will because you think you have a right to do so. I don't even want that right, I just want the right to have my own opinion and to allow others to have theirs.

Did that completely go over your head?

We both have the freedom to express our opinions, you don't have the right to prevent me from sharing my opinion, just as I don't have the right to prevent you from sharing your opinion.

If you are saying its wrong to tell others they are wrong, and you are telling me I am wrong, wouldn't you be a hypocrite by your own logic?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Are you guy's related or

Are you guy's related or something?

You can have your opinion but i believe that you don't have a right to make up facts. Your Liberty's end where mine begin. So you do have a right to a opinion maybe even a theory or a hypothesis whatever it is you need to make a point but don't go on spreading false rumors about someone, name calling or making things up.

My five cents worth, i think he could of waited or just stayed away from answering the question...something to that extent, the timing was off.

WTF are you talking about?

No one is spreading rumors in this conversation.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I was just throwing out what

I was just throwing out what i believe to be Libertarian ideas. Not that you or the other person were making up rumors.

Nope, but my comment went over yours

I gathered the facts based on your previous posts, then re-stated them. I didn't state my opinion, I re-stated your previous statement and compared it to my own. You want to have the right to control other people's opinions while I want the right to have my own and allow you to have yours. I don't need the right to tell you that you are wrong, but you do. That's where we differ.

You didn't address a single one my points,

And No I do not want to control other peoples opinions, I DON'T want people like you telling me I can't express my opinion.

You are expressing that you want to control others opinions, by stating, that others shouldn't be able share them.

You are walking contradiction, you keep saying its wrong to tell others they are wrong, but you keep telling me I am wrong.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

If you have a right not to have someone else share their opinion, how will you enforce this?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard