20 votes

A Note on Rand, Playing Politics and Constitutional Arguments

After my article yesterday regarding Rand Paul's recent statements
regarding drug legalization, I received some criticism particularly over at the Daily Paul for coming down too hard on Rand. "After all", the argument goes,"he is just taking the Constitutional position and leaving it up to the states to decide. Rand is on our side".

To be clear, in the specific statements Paul made regarding drug legalization, there was no distinction between "federal" and "state" legalization of drugs. He simply stated that he "wasn't for that (legalizing heroin)." And yes, I am well aware that this is a more politically palatable position, as I've been reminded over and over, because Rand needs to do what he has to do to "win". This attitude implies that it's not ideas that are important, but political victory itself.

I believe this is the opposite of how politics should be viewed as a tool for advancing liberty. Political victory should come as a result of expressing the correct ideas about liberty. If liberty positions must be "muddled" and "filtered", what is gained by any victory? This is an example of the problem, as I've discussed before, with simply using Constitutional arguments when developing positions. If one simply relies on the Constitution for framing all of their arguments, one can quickly lose moral high ground in debate over an issue.

This is how libertarians get into trouble when they say things like "well, drug laws should be left to the States...that is what is Constitutional". But this is a backwards way to make an effective argument. Rather, it should be explained that it is wrong to use force on someone simply for putting a substance into their body. It should then be argued that federal drug laws should be repealed for this reason.

Continue Reading




Comment viewing options

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

this is the problem. The

this is the problem. The population has been brainwashed through the statist school systems and the nightly news. Liberty is subject that most do not understand at this time. It does not bother me for Rand to bend a little as long as he can make the changes and better articulate his position once he is in office. He will be 10 million percent better than any jackass running. The only other person whom I like better than Rand Is Judge Napolitano.

You are making two assumptions.

You are assuming that Rand does understand liberty. And you are assuming that Rand wants liberty more than Rand wants personal power.

And even so, Ron proved that foregoing the lies to achieve liberty is very popular.

No argument to win

I think that almost everyone, with very few exceptions, fail to get it.

This thread, and many others, prove the point.

There are at least 3 very basic categories from which a person alive today can find themselves joining voluntarily or nullifying their membership within that category, again using the same voluntary power of will.

1.
Criminal

2.
Victim

3.
Neither 1 or 2

Confusion over who is where includes the concept of government being something confused by criminals who claim to be government and when the victims are led to believe such deceptions they are, constituted in that way, perpetual victims, or even professional victims, for as long as they remain victimized in that way.

Criminals can be those with badges, or those without badges, in any case their voluntary association among the criminal class, or category is done so, individually, as they volunteer to resort to crime as a way of life, again, with or without the badge.

That brings up the 3rd group and he, or she, who has figured out a way to be neither criminal, or victim, constitutes those among us who are powerful enough to exemplify the concept of government in a purely moral, real, authoritative, form.

Here in this situation where Ron and Rand Paul are found, and anyone else in a similar situation, are the conditions, the measurable reality, of what is, or is not, voluntary methods of enforcing good, moral, effective government, whereby the volunteers manage to avoid being either criminal or victim.

Those who are confused will perpetually be victims.

Those who are decidedly criminal, with or without the badges, will decide, for themselves, to remain criminals, because that is what they decide to do, with or without a badge.

If they decide to be criminals with badges, that does not constitute freedom, or liberty, from their own measure of their own condition of victimization, because that is how crime works, as if rats never developed into anything closely resembling human beings.

Each rat in crime is more than happy to make a victim out of the next rat who may appear to be weak and ripe as rat food.

if they decide to be criminals without badges, the same conditions of life exist, ever vigilant requirements exist to find ways to avoid being victim to the fellow rats with badges, and the fellow rats without badges are as ready to cannibalize upon any ready victim, rat or otherwise.

So where are these people who do manage to be neither criminal (with or without the badge) or victim (with or without a badge)?

Anywhere, anyone, so constituted whereby their power remains to be their power voluntarily, both economic, or physical power, as well as political, or psychological power, remains contained within their own power, their own control, their own willful employment, since no criminal removes that power, no criminal removes that power by way of deceit, no criminal removes that power by way of threats of violence, and no criminal removes that power by way of aggressive violence upon that innocent person who remains to be innocent because that person does not resort to deceit, threats, or violence as a means of taking power away from anyone else.

Many of the criminals, and many of the victims are apt to declare that someone so constituted in the description above, someone who is neither criminal or victim, cannot be anyone "in government" so called, for various confessed reasons, so called.

It is unreasonable, however, to claim that deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the innocent, designed to take the power from the targeted victim, is necessary in the fight against crime.

Most of the victims with or without badges believe that fundamental deception used by the criminals with badges, and many of the criminals without badges know better than to believe that those criminals with badges are anything but criminals with badges.

Crime is a very competitive vocation.

Good government can also be a very competitive vocation.

Who says?

No one but me?

If so, then my point is proven.

My point is to point out that a Democratic Federated Government is designed to provide anyone, anywhere, with the choice to volunteer to invest into higher quality, the highest available among those who volunteer to supply it, and lower cost, the lowest cost among those who volunteer to supply it, government.

That design feature is the fundamental difference between a Democratic Federated Republic, where Sovereign Constitutionally Limited State Governments, are volunteering to create, invest in, or not invest it, join, or not join, belong to, or secede from, a Federated Voluntary Government.

That is the design feature spoken about when someone points out how there are Federal concerns, such as defense against large armies of criminals who may invaded, pillage, and destroy people and property in any State within the Voluntary Union, and other concerns, such as who said what to who in a reference to an agreement to trade a dairy product for a measure of precious metal, is not a "Federal" matter.

I don't know if that helps anyone. I think it may be a good idea to know better, since worse can become rapidly unaffordable.

Joe

Rand has a fine line to walk

He has to keep his dad's energetic base happy while culling the establishment vote, which is much more necessary to winning an election than we are. You have to understand that he is eyeing the presidency and trying to make a run at it that doesn't leave him picking up the libertarian vote while some establishment hack comes in and cleans up the evangelicals/neocons/republican base. But always be cautious about people who seek political power. Remember the TJ quote. "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."

No train to Stockholm.

Well said! What good is

Well said!

What good is political victory if it is gained based on principles incompatible with libertarian values?

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

Like it or not political

Like it or not political victory IS the primary goal and it IS much more important than "the truth" or "ideals". Political victory is more important than just about anything because without it, people continue to be murdered and enslaved, bombed and tortured. Your argument falls extremely weak against more dead bodies. I could care less about him telling the truth when all it will do is get more people killed. If truth is more important to you than life, fine, but don't play god with other peoples' lives. Supporting heroin legalization openly given the position Rand is in would be irresponsible and stupid and ultimately result in people dying.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

wolfe's picture

How many?!?!

How many lives has Rand's political victories saved? None! Zip! Zero!

This is the most ridiculous argument that I hate by the "vote matters" crowd.

Ron Paul, came and went... Did his votes matter? Nope. Did our votes for him matter? Nope. Are there less dead because of those votes? Nope.

What we DO have is a slightly greater than average education among folks, such as yourself now. So we have more people willing to fight the bloodshed!

Society will do as society wants to do. As long as they think war is acceptable, which by continuing to play into their lies, that is EXACTLY what you are doing, they will continue to fall back into supporting it.

You must fix the lies, so that they don't change their minds the next time they are called on to make a decision.

Education is ALL that matters.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Your logic: he hasn't done

Your logic: he hasn't done something, therefore he will never do it.
Proof that is a complete fallacy: everyone, ever.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

wolfe's picture

No.

It's saying that there is proof education works and that there is no proof that politics ever worked.

So in absence of any proof that it works, you must consider whether it can logically be obtained at some point in the future. Politics by definition is coersion, and that only works for as long as the pressure is applied. There is proof of that in many human endeavors as well as natural occurrences.

The argument against education is that it is too slow, and ineffective. We can prove that while you may call it "slow" it does have a positive effect, and yet you cannot show that politics is ever effective.

So you call education "slow", but I prefer slow instead of a standstill. In addition, I don't consider it slow, and in comparison to the alternative you provide is downright speedy.

If you lie to achieve your goals that is a direct contradiction to education and so yes, the two ARE mutually exclusive.

I accept politics as a means of educating people (using an elected office to preach, not simply to continue being elected), if/when that is the only goal (Ron Paul), however, the second that lies, compromises, and misdirections are used to achieve your goals, it becomes in opposition to education and is true politics (Rand Paul).

And lastly, the "absence of evidence" reference is not applicable here, because politics have been tried throughout all of human history, and therefore we do have evidence to it's ineffectiveness. I won't rule out that it could someday, maybe be effective, just like someday, maybe I will win the lottery. But I would rather work hard and earn my money because I KNOW that is effective.

"Absence of evidence" would mean that politics have never been tried to improve liberty levels in a country. The fact that it HAS been tried, repeatedly throughout ALL of human history, and failed miserably every time IS evidence of failure.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Again you make a long winded

Again you make a long winded argument completely founded in pure absurdity. There is no evidence that politics works?! Are you trolling me right now?!!!

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

wolfe's picture

You call the argument absurd...

Since you can't prove your statement.

You claim "absence of evidence", when in fact there is evidence of failure.

Our Constitution is one of the more recent examples. Has the politics and revolution that generated it created more or less liberty?

I asked you to name one example of effectiveness. I can many of failure.

Your failure to name one is not my problem, it's yours with your argument.

And clearly you did not bother to read my "long winded" and yet informative and thought out response to you. That is disrespectful and rude to not do so before responding.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Whatever method you used to

Whatever method you used to deduce that I did not read your comment, throw it in the garbage, it failed you and was wrong. Grow some balls. I'm not going to address every single thing you say when the entire stack of crap you fed me was based on the absolutely ludicrous idea that politics don't work. I can in fact provide examples, I just don't believe anyone so dense that they need them pointed out is worth pointing them out to. But here I go anyway. Barrack Obama. George Bush. Pretty much every elected official currently in office or in office in the last 50+ years.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

wolfe's picture

Interesting.

So your examples of politics helping to create liberty, free people, and end the warmongering are --- Obama and Bush?

Wow.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, because it was clear you had not read, or did not understand. But since you say you read it, I will take your word for it.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

No, those are my examples of

No, those are my examples of politics working to get things done.

If you want examples of politics creating liberty, well, there are none, or examples of anything else creating liberty, so I guess according to you we're just plain fucked. Oh and also, nothing has ever happened. Because nothing can happen if it hasn't already happened and therefore nothing could have happened to begin with.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You fix it by getting the

You fix it by getting the person you know that once in office will follow the Constitution. Vote for someone other than Rand and the killing will be worse. EDUCATION is joke. You will NOT change the statist schools or the liberal media.

wolfe's picture

Then all that you change...

is who is in power. (As if the president had any real power, come on, you don't still believe that do you?)

You may as well give up now.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You are conflating

political victory and meaningless votes.

Are you trying to say that professing ideals at the sake of a win will do more immediate good than playing politics to achieve political advantage?

Sorry, but that's just not true. Look at the majority of Americans. They look to leaders and winners, now as much as ever. They are WILLFULLY ignorant, you can not teach those who refuse to listen. Is that ideal, good or acceptable? NO, but it is a sad fact.

What's going to change the course of history faster, a sitting president professing the ideals of liberty and showing how his policies and thus libertarianism are the most ethical and beneficial of political theory OR a small group of people pushing the ideals of liberty while being dismissed by the mainstream media, and political mainstream at every turn because they have had no recognizable political success?

Another question, do you think Ron would have gained as much notoriety by running in the LP? How about if he ran for congress as a libertarian?

Whether people like it or not, political success in our country is important and it's the only thing that can really change the course we are on.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Bump for conflating

It's a great word.

I can understand where your coming from, but, if he sells out the ideals to become president, what ideals will he use in office?

Political promises sometimes are simply given, with no intention of keeping, as we all know.

I will certainly forgive him for breaking his promise in this instance, but I do see it as a slippery slope, for both him and me.

Just open the box and see

"If"

What do you have to lose? I mean really, if you're right and we don't have a dog in this race. What's the harm helping Rand could do? I think 99.999% of libertarians would agree he's better than Billary. If I'm right, we win a lot. If I'm wrong we get the lesser of two evils like usual.

Honestly though, what politician advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana and then says sternly that he doesn't want to legalize drugs? It's obviously political positioning. Must seem obvious to Judge Nap and Dr.Paul as well or they wouldn't be supporting him I'm sure.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Agreed

I certainly will support Rand over Billary, that's a no brainier.

In all honesty though, I would support coco the talking chimp over billary. :0

I do understand the political side of things, or rather, that it exists.

The political maneuverings are one the things Rand certainly does better than Ron, and I still support Rand. I really do think he knows what he's doing, but not being a politically savvy person, I wonder at some of the plays.

As you point out, decriminalizing is not legalizing.

Just open the box and see

wolfe's picture

I used to have a saying...

Being right for the wrong reasons is as good as being wrong.

And here is why. As I have stated, if the people don't understand WHY it is wrong, than ANY victory is fleeting and short lived. Political change has never occurred for the better.

However, if people understand WHY something is wrong, then they will never have to be coerced into doing the right thing again.

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

Education wins permanent victories. You may call it a slow win, but I prefer a slow win to a absolute loss any day.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

It is posts like this that

It is posts like this that make me sit here with my mouth agape and make me bury my face in my palm. I couldn't give less fucks about the reasoning. People dying regardless of the wrong or right reason is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and so far removed from your little "bits of wisdom" advice bag as to make you look preposterous and borderline psychopathic. I don't call it a slow win actually, I call it total defeat. You seriously think we have time to play a long political game right now? You think we can win despite the facts of history?! That's either painfully naive or indicative of a lack of value for human life. It is time to cut our losses. It is so stupid to think we can ever get our way on everything, all at once! So completely and utterly removed from this reality!!!

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

It will be to late by then

Sacrificing people's lives and wealth for a seemingly superior moral victory isn't right.

The ideas of liberty(as currently perceived) have been around since the late 17th century, and it hasn't happened yet... Education is never a permanent victory. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

It's a simple matter of an uneducated populace who holds bad ideals, reinforced by political parties, who hold political power. What's the most logical way to educate the populace? Seize power, and give it back to the people.

What's the best way to change someones mind? Tell them, or show them? It will always be the latter.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

wolfe's picture

You are sacrificing their lives today...

By pretending that some lives are more important than others because it is "too politically dangerous" to talk about X.

Further. Show me one, just one example of where either Ron Paul's or Rand Paul's votes ever saved a single life, or hell anyone's for that matter.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Straw men

Yeah, because Rand Paul going on national news and doing what Ron bravely did for years, will somehow create a different outcome than it did for Ron.

I never once said that their votes saved lives, that's an obvious straw man. You didn't even read my first comment because i addressed that. What will save lives is getting the principles of liberty introduced as soon as possible not as soon as it is idealistically possible.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

wolfe's picture

It is not a strawman...

You believe getting elected matters more than principle. Couch it however you want, that refers to votes.

Education does save lives. Proven by posts here, almost daily. People refusing to enlist in the war effort, protecting themselves from the police state etc.

Education brought people here. Not votes. Education saves. Politics kills time.

Ron Paul never missed an opportunity to educate. Rand Paul never misses an opportunity to play politics. Huge difference.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Lolk

Are you telling me the Daily Paul just awakened all of the people here?

I do believe it was Ron Paul, who was a republican who participated in government as a republican congressman and ran as a republican for president. You know that politics stuff. I suppose his participation in politics is just a waste of time from your perspective.

You think politics and education are mutually exclusive, and you're wrong.

"Show me one, just one example of where either Ron Paul's or Rand Paul's votes ever saved a single life, or hell anyone's for that matter."

That's a straw man, backpedal all you like.
You set up a straw man to try and shoot it down.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

wolfe's picture

No, I have been very clear...

It was Ron Paul never missing an opportunity to educate.

Not his casting votes, or us casting votes for him.

I set up no strawman, you refuse to admit that your argument involves "votes" and "leaders", and yet that is all your argument is.

If Ron had played politics like Rand for the last 30 years, this site would not exist. Nor would all of the people that are here, be here.

Which by the way, oddly enough, Ron Paul speaking the truth never kept him from being re-elected, but your argument is that speaking the truth is begging for him to be ousted. Strange.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

ugh

It was Ron Paul never missing an opportunity to educate.

AS A POLITICIAN


Not his casting votes, or us casting votes for him.

Another Straw man


I set up no strawman, you refuse to admit that your argument involves "votes" and "leaders", and yet that is all your argument is.

Of course it does, this is ANOTHER straw man. I never said my idea never involved votes or leaders. Perhaps you should look up the definition because apparently you don't know what a straw man is!


If Ron had played politics like Rand for the last 30 years, this site would not exist. Nor would all of the people that are here, be here.

Ron Paul played politics plenty. Rand just plays more to inside than Ron ever did. To deny that Ron played politics is to deny reality.


Which by the way, oddly enough, Ron Paul speaking the truth never kept him from being re-elected, but your argument is that speaking the truth is begging for him to be ousted. Strange.

Really? Ron Paul became president? He was never marginalized? Never written out of the conversation? Never ignored or fought against? Where the hell have I been?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

wolfe's picture

You misuse and overuse the word strawman.

And you speak out of both sides of your mouth. You call my argument against "votes" and "leaders" a strawman, and then claim to not deny your argument being for "votes" and "leaders"...

Wishy washy at best. But really not worth arguing with at this point.

It's funny, when someone can't defend their viewpoint, they almost always make an attempt at calling the opposing argument out as some logical fallacy, usually incorrectly. If there isn't a fallacy name dedicated to that yet, there should be.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/