Fascist Rand Paul Supports Omnipotent Government, Corporatism, More Taxes

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Rand Paul claims to support lower taxation and “smaller government.” Some even call him a libertarian. On his own website, however, he calls for “robust” funding for “defense” programs, which constitute about half of the Federal Budget, if calculated honestly.

Paul also seems to believe that certain classes of people “do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” which implies that Paul believes the Federal government can choose to inflict cruel or unusual punishments (for example) or to disregard treaty obligations in respect to people the government determines are ‘undeserving of Constitutional protection.’

Let’s look at some positions Rand Paul publicly supports:

Supports More Taxes for State-subsidized Military-Industrial Corporations:

“Rand supports robust funding for our military. Under Dr. Paul’s vision, the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase.”

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/

Supports the Denial of Due Process for Accused Terrorists and “Detainees”:

" Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil. He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees."

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/

“Foreign [alleged] terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution…These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2010&base_name=is_rand_paul_good_for_civil_li

Supports the U.S. Invasion and attempted Colonization of Afghanistan and its Opium Fields:

“When our national security is threatened, Dr. Paul would not hesitate to authorize swift military action to destroy the threat, and he has clearly stated he would have done so in Afghanistan.”

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/02/rand-paul-a-strong-national-defense-and-a-pro-american-foreign-policy/

Supports the Militarization of the U.S./Mexico Border:

“My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.”

http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/illegal-immigration/

Doesn’t Necessarily Believe B.P. was ‘at Fault’ in the Gulf Oil Blowout:

“I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.”

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/21/rand-paul-calls-white-house-pressure-on-bp-%E2%80%98un-american%E2%80%99-says-that-%E2%80%98sometimes-accidents-happen%E2%80%99/

Heavy taxation to subsidize a bloated military-industrial cartel, troops along the border, armed aggression and occupation abroad, unlimited force authorized for dealing with “enemies of the state,” no “blame” for powerful and deadly corporations. Smells like fascism to me. Rand Paul seems to be willing to jettison whatever libertarian convictions he may have whenever they are politically troublesome.

2

Well, paragraphs are your friends.

But anyway, a shame Rand didn’t learn enough from his father, but it’s also cool that Ron let his son choses his own intellectual path.

3

Yeah, browser issues. Paragraphs now!

4

Benjamin,

Much of this is concerning. I really haven’t been following Rand too much, but What is the argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants?

Mind you that I am a budding libertarian here and former “conservative” or “neoconservative” as I tend to think Libertarians are the true Conservatives or Liberals (take your pick) since they uphold the foundations of classical liberalism, but I digress. I did two tourse in Iraq 2004-2006 in the Marines and my experience there led me to first question, then oppose the war effort, but if a war is being fought against a foreign enemy then I am not quite sure why you imply that enemy combatants should be afforded due process. I am not really here to so much challenge your position as I am to simply hear you out on this

5

I kind of disagree with the analysis on his BP view. Lew Rockwell had a mises daily espousing essentially the same view. Should we knock him for it as well?

http://mises.org/daily/4331

.

6

jdp,

The argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants is essentially.. how do you determine someone is an enemy combatant? Currently, the state just “deems” someone to be an enemy combatant. But how can we garuntee that it wont deem an innocent person to be an enemy combatant? The reason we have a trial is to avoid this type of presumtion of guilt.

Personally, I have no problem with terrorist being tried in military court. But if you give the government that power it opens up the door for massive abuse. The only way to secure our rights is to just treat everyone the same and give everyone the same rights.

7

Don’t get your panties in a bunch on the BP thing.

All he said was that accidents happen - which is true.

And he said BP should be fully liable for the cost of the cleanup and punishment, etc. Rockwell said this too.

Rand also objected to Obama Admin’s fascist rhetoric about putting their boot heel on the throat of a business. Obama Admin needs not to demagogue it, but apply justice evenly.

8

Look guys,

Rand is actually a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to “play the political game” and water down/change some of his views.

Deal with it.

He will still be the best person in DC besides his father.

9

“I kind of disagree with the analysis on his BP view. Lew Rockwell had a mises daily espousing essentially the same view. Should we knock him for it as well?”

What do you mean? Rockwell said specifically that BP should pay for every single cent of cleanup whereas from the looks of it the Rand Paul artical seems to indicate that he would be willing to let BP off with a slap to the wrist

10

“Rockwell said specifically that BP should pay for every single cent of cleanup whereas from the looks of it the Rand Paul artical seems to indicate that he would be willing to let BP off with a slap to the wrist”

No - Rand supports BP paying for the cleanup plus possible more. I heard him say that in an interview. He just didn’t like the administration’s rhetoric.

11

Chris I have actually always wondered and questioned whether the immense powers granted to the state could ever be turned against the American people. The bigger quesiton in relation to this is what exactly is the government definition of terrorism? If I go and blow up a Walmart and kill 100 people will I be tried in criminal court or will I be shipped off to some military base to never be heard from again? The question of what exactly is terrorism for the purposes of possibly denying someone due process has been something I have thought about before. I do understand the counter argument to this as far as it concerns non citizens though.

12

“Much of this is concerning. I really haven’t been following Rand too much, but What is the argument against trial by military commission for enemy combatants?”

Well, as far as your question goes, I don’t necessarily have any problems with military tribunals, per se. I do have a problem with the phrase “enemy combatants.” My understanding is that terms like “enemy combatant” and “detainee” are mostly are used because they have no actual meaning in law. In other words; there are established bodies of law which deal with the types of crimes the government accuses “terrorists” of committing.

Mass murder of civilians, or attempted mass murder of civilians, for example, is prosecutable in civilian courts and under U.S. domestic law. It is often arguably prosecutable under the military ‘laws of war’ as well in many cases, as a ‘war crime.’ Additionally, it may be often prosecutable under International Law. The problem seems to be, from the government’s point of view, that if prisoners are called "criminals, " then they are entitled to the protections of civilian law; if they are called “war criminals,” they are entitled to the protections afforded to Prisoners of War, as delineated in the Nuremberg Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they are sent to the International Criminal Court, then they are under the jurisdiction of International Law. In any of the three cases, the accused would be entitled to due process in one of the three jurisdictions; which would include things like the right to hear the charges against them, to talk to a lawyer privately, to not be tortured, to be released if acquitted, and various other measures intended to promote a fair trial.

The government’s position, under both Bush and Obama, seems to be that if their administrations invents a new word for “prisoner” (‘detainee’ or ‘enemy combatant’), then the people they so label can be dealt with without any reference to any law; laws can be made up as the government goes along, because there are no laws governing the treatment of ‘detainees’ as such, and they use this word precisely for this reason. The problem is; how do we know a ‘detainee’ is guilty? The purpose of the ‘due process’ afforded by the various jurisdictions of law is to establish this guilt. The problem with a statement like "“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution” is, how do you know they ARE a terrorist? The purpose of trial by jury, for example, is established in the Constitution as a means of DETERMINING the guilt of persons; absent this ‘protection,’ what process are we going to use to discover if they really are a terrorist?

Rand Paul’s website says “He supports military tribunals and not civilian trials for detainees.” So, because someone is detained by the military, they therefore automatically lose their right to a civilian trial? His website says in the previous sentence; “Dr. Paul supports keeping enemy combatants at Guantanamo and never bringing them to American soil.” Dr. Paul seems to be implying that simply because someone is detained, it’s safe to assume that they are an “enemy combatant,” and that thus they do not “deserve” any legal protections, whatsoever, simply because the government has accused them of wrongdoing and invented a novel label for the wrongdoing. The government can ignore the law in regards to anyone; all they have to do is make up a new word to call you which is not found in existing law, and then claim that people described by this ‘new word’ are not covered under existing laws.

This all may sound ridiculous, but I think there is a very strong case that this is in fact the legalistic maneuver the government is in fact employing to avoid legitimate trials of many people currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, among other sites.

The reality is that the Constitution is the government’s charter, and the Constitution describes and limits the powers and abilities of the government; it does not describe and limit the rights of individuals (foreign or citizen), as the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly state. For example, the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Constitution does not describe the right of individuals not to be tortured and then limit this right to U.S. citizens; rather, the clause limits the U.S. government from engaging in “cruel and unusual punishment,” against anyone, everyone, anywhere for any reason. It’s a limit on what the chartered government can legally do; not an enumeration or limitation of the rights of individuals

. What I find most troubling about Dr. Paul’s statements (although he’s certainly not alone in this), is that he seems to be talking about the Constitution as a document which limits and defines the rights and privileges of individuals, as opposed to the truth, which is that it is a document which delineates the rights and privileges of the government it establishes through law.

13

Counter-points

Supports More Taxes for State-subsidized Military-Industrial Corporations:

He may be supporting military for DEFENSE only. He may be recalling all troops and dismantle all foreign bases. But keep a strong national defense. Plus, he is more electable unfortunately if he shows America is Strong.

Supports the Denial of Due Process for Accused Terrorists and “Detainees”:

Why do I have to pay for the airfare and criminal trial of these foreigners? Do you honestly think a Terrorist will get a fair trial against the people he is trying to kill? I don’t want them flown against their will to the US. I’d prefer a mock miiitary trial and have them released and send the troops home. Which I think is his reasons for supporting this.

Supports the Militarization of the U.S./Mexico Border:

Probably where some of the taxes of the state subsidized miilitary industrial complex is going. I think this fits in with constitutional obligations. Instead of using troops for invading. Use the troops to defend against invaders.

Supports the U.S. Invasion and attempted Colonization of Afghanistan and its Opium Fields:

If a nation attacks the US, swift action is required. Fits in with the constitution. Probably would have wanted to go to war with afghanistan only if it was done under declaration of war.

Doesn’t Necessarily Believe B.P. was ‘at Fault’ in the Gulf Oil Blowout:

If you are paying few cents per barrel of oil to pay for a “FUTURE” oil spill. plus have a Government maximum liability limit. This would send a strong message to BP that they have “spill insurance”. Therefore, we have government at fault here as well as BP. Accidents do happen. Ignoring government’s influence on the cause of this disaster is naive.

Note: I am playing devils advocate. I am making a defense based on what I know of the views of Rand Paul. Typically a Constitution Party platform. My comments on each subject are not my personal views.

14

and

are either not true, or at least not supported by the article you linked to. In fact, it specifically says that Paul believes only congress can declare war, troops shouldn’t be used as a police force, and that he’s opposed to nation-building. Opium isn’t mentioned at all.

Not only is this thread pointless in that we already knew Rand Paul is not an anarcho-caplitalist, your argument is deceptive to boot.

15

It’s a logical argument you have. One thing I have thought about is that when the Constitution was written in 1787 there was no such thing as a legal construct defining you as an “American citizen” to my knowledge. You lived in a state that was voluntarily a member of the union although I’m not even sure if there was a record of you being a citizen of a particular state. Perhaps a property owner would have had some record with the state or something. Either way the whole line today that non US citizens are not given constitutional rights would have been alien in our early history as a Constitutional Republic since no one was a US citizen in a legal framework sort of way. For example if an Irish man immigrated to America and in his first week in country committed even the most heinous crime such as blowing up a building taking many lives in the process, he or she would have been given due process.

Is my reasoning correct or am I wrong? This is not something I have seriously reserched as I mentioned before. Just something I have brainstormed about in the past

16

“In fact, it specifically says that Paul believes only congress can declare war, troops shouldn’t be used as a police force, and that he’s opposed to nation-building. Opium isn’t mentioned at all.”

Yes, but we’re talking about politicians here. In the context of politics, if a politician is not calling for a new policy, they are in de facto support of existing policy.

“Rand has distanced himself from his father’s foreign-policy noninterventionism, insisting he’s for the war in Afghanistan and against rapid withdrawal from Iraq.”

Paul’s campaign manager indicated he’s not for immediately pulling out all of the troops of either Iraq or Afghanistan: “He is not for wholesale withdrawal. Rand has advocated better defining the mission, but now that we’re there we have to win.”

Especially that second quote sounds like FULL ON SUPPORT for existing policies of troops used as a police force, nation building, and complicity in the opium trade.

Paul claims he believes that a declaration of war is necessary to have a war, which would make both current wars illegal on account of being undeclared, but he seems fine with continuing things he claims to believe to be illegal. He’s not calling for withdrawal of troops until such a time as war is declared, is he?

As for the opium, I personally believe that it’s a major part of the reason the U.S. is there. Maybe I’m cynical, but most of that opium is being sold to the Russians and is causing major problems for their society, while the trade creates massive amounts of black market money which ends up being laundered by Western banks, and very profitably I might add. But don’t take my word for it:

Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions

Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations’ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.

This will raise questions about crime’s influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. “In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor,” he said.

Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said.

“Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities… There were signs that some banks were rescued that way.” Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered.

“That was the moment [last year] when the system was basically paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was,” he said.

The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover.

Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US.

British bankers would want to see any evidence that Costa has to back his claims. A British Bankers’ Association spokesman said: “We have not been party to any regulatory dialogue that would support a theory of this kind. There was clearly a lack of liquidity in the system and to a large degree this was filled by the intervention of central banks.”

So like I said, Paul doesn’t seem to have any real opposition to the status quo in Afghanistan, which very likely includes Western profiteering off of illicit opium.

.

17

So, Ben, we don’t really support Rand Paul.

But you’re always clamoring for more democracy. How do you feel about the way the people have spoken this time?

18

You should have a problem with it because it is a blunder strategically. Giving them a military trial raises their profile and their status, it makes them into the equivalents of the prime minister Tojo and his generals. Giving them a civilian trial relegates them to the rank of rapists, thieves and murderers.

In Britain the authorithies insisted on treating the captured IRA cadre as common criminals, which they absolutely hated and insisted on being given a status distinct from them. But in the USA the government voluntarily aids the terrorist cause by insisting on giving them a treatment distinct from that of common murderers.

It does not matter if the military prisons are harsher and the military trials easier for the prosecution. The very fact that they are given a treatment different from that of criminals reinorces the view that they are not criminals but more like political prisoners, or some sort of prisoners of war, to a significant extent it robbs the US of a moral victory for bringing a criminal/terrorist to justice

19

Look guys,

Rand is actually a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to “play the political game” and water down/change some of his views.

Deal with it.

He will still be the best person in DC besides his father.

+1

20

Rand is actually a very principled libertarian philosophically, however he has decided to “play the political game” and water down/change some of his >views.

Is there some evidence for this claim other than wishful thinking? And, if I accept this claim, how long will he play the political game and water down his views? Will he vote in anti-freedom ways (for wars, against due process, against impeachment on these issues, against private property since he’s now pro-CRA1964) because, after all, he’s the best person in DC besides Ron and therefore needs to win reelection?