Comment: Your saying I am "controlled

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Rand Paul might not be for Liberty? (see in situ)

Your saying I am "controlled

Your saying I am "controlled opposition" simply based on the "craftiness", as you call it, of my post? Give ME a break.

You can review my previous posts, I can't recall ever even mentioning Gary Johnson who I happen to think also has an inconsistent position in regards to abortion.

I can only remember mentioning Ted Cruz one time in the context of the question, whether we can conclude he would be good as a president, since after all, "he does sign his name following "In Liberty"..

Besides, a large gist of the post is a critique of statements Rand made regarding his foreign policy position. It is not hard to find plenty of statements which Ted Cruz has stated which is much more extreme than the very position I am critiquing.

The question which you have not even attempted to answer is, how can Rand's statement regarding Russia be justified from a Misean model of libertarianism.

By the way, wether or not his position is inconsistent here is a separate question from whether or not to support him. As his dad says, "He is the most libertarian person in the senate." I specifically mention that, as a senator, he has "exceeded expectations".

The more fundamental question is, what is your understanding of libertarianism? Perhaps you have a different conception? In your view, is the principle of "non-intervention" not necessarily a central principle in the libertarian philosophy?

My primary concern, as I have written a number of times about, is a neo-con hijacking of the liberty movement. Your stance here can easily lead to what, personally, I am concerned about.

Though, to be sure, I certainly am not alone with this concern. There are plenty of articles written, if you care to read them, about this current hijacking attempt on the Ron Paul Institute website under "Neocon Watch".

For example, this is a good one:

You don't even address the question of inconsistency then you jump to: "Join together or die divided in pieces." That sounds like something Huckabee would say. Then you end with "Don't be buffaloed". Are you suggesting that the ideas we "join together" behind are not really all that relevant and do not have real consequences? That stance seems very similar to a current status-quo paradigm which the libertarian movement is up against.