This is a bit frustrating the stance Rand took on this. I can understand him simply not liking the Mosque being built there since most find it a bit distasteful. It’s fine to not personally approve, but that’s different from limiting or completely restricting private property rights through government coercion. However, he seems to be flirting terribly close to endorsing a forceful government move to ban the Mosque…Or at least sympathizing with such views. I honestly think that he holds a view similar to his father, but for election purposes is dancing around the issue. I don’t want someone who stands for private property rights and the right to freely associate to be timid. If standing up for these things costs you the election then so be it, but don’t kneel down at the alter of the DC political machine.
[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014453-503544.html](http://Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul is breaking with many of his fellow Republicans - among them his son Rand - to support the creation of the planned Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center that has come to be known as the “ground zero mosque.” In a statement decrying “demagogy” around the issue, the former Republican presidential candidate wrote late last week that “the debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.” “Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be ‘sensitive’ requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from ‘ground zero,’” Paul continues. He goes on to argue that “the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia…never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars.” Adds Paul: “It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators.” “This is all about hate and Islamaphobia,” he argues. The statement is particularly notable in light of comments on the issue by Paul’s son, Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul. Rand Paul has said that while he is hesitant to get involved in a local issue, he does not believe the cultural center should be built; “the Muslim community would better serve the healing process by making a donation to the memorial fund for the victims of September 11th,” he said. (By the way, Paul’s Democratic opponent in the Senate race, Jack Conway, also opposes the center.) Rand Paul got in trouble early in his general election campaign for staking out typically-Libertarian positions, most notably in questioning parts of the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. He subsequently adopted more traditionally-Republican rhetoric and declined to embrace his father’s full-throated opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other causes important to many libertarians. )
Ah, the good old fungled political move that the Pauls have an incredible knack of having. If Rand had stuck to what he originally said about racism(Namely, that private property owners>Government) then he would basically have no issue here, and might even attract “Bipartisan” support from lefties.
Rand is probably less polished than Ron, which is saying something. He seems more of a waffler as well. Ron Paul doesn’t have to worry about that because he believes what he preaches!
Wow… what a great opportunity this was for Republicans to take a stand on private property instead of pandering to xenophobia. Predictably, they’ve screwed up royally. Oh well.
For what little it is worth either way, he is not a libertarian, if that is what you are thinking, he even says so himself in this recent interview in USA Today:
Rand Paul, libertarian? Not quite.
"It’s often repeated in stories about me or my race for
U.S. Senate that I am a “libertarian.” In my mind, the
word “libertarian” has become an emotionally
charged, and often misunderstood, word in our
current political climate. But, I would argue very
strongly that the vast coalition of Americans —
including independents, moderates, Republicans,
conservatives and “Tea Party” activists — share many
libertarian points of view, as do I.
I choose to use a different phrase to describe my
beliefs — I consider myself a constitutional
conservative, which I take to mean a conservative
who actually believes in smaller government and
more individual freedom. …"
I hate to attack comedians, especially one as irrelevant as Maher, but Bill Maher isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed either. The fact that he’s making a joke about Paul’s degree in medicine is pretty funny considering Maher’s history of spewing falsities, some of which were related to the field of medicine.
Rand Paul is clearly a fascist. He supports expansionist militarism, the demonization of an unpopular ethnic/religious group, and yes, private property with state regulation. The last time I checked, those were the three main ingredients in fascism.
First, it is the “D.C. political machine” that encourages foolish, offensive projects like this. The mosque is funded by radical Islamic groups and encouraged by radical left-wing groups as a way to spit in the face of Americans. It has nothing to do with “healing” and “tolerance” as supporters claim. Muslims have a right to build a mosque wherever they please, but this sight was specifically chosen to make a political statement.
If you would be among those to allow it as a matter of private property rights, however, I can understand this view-- though “property rights” is hardly a concept supported by the state of New York. That is why I am a supporter of Greg Gutfeld’s proposed new Muslim gay bar, which he plans to build right next to the Ground Zero Mosque. Check out the details. This will be hilariously ironic.
Dear God, the man has a disagreement with you on one issue, and everyone attacks him and calls him a Fascist. No wonder libertarian values never get decent representation in government. Since I know of only one post here that is an obvious Socialist plant, shame on the rest of you!
Rand Paul is a conservative and he never said he was anything else that I’m aware of. Why is anyone acting surprised and ‘outraged’ over some of his stances?
Why should the other folks here take positions for the sake of decent representations in government? Why is government representation relevant here?
Schools of thought have little to do with the functioning of government. The government represents strictly the government class. If you ever looked up some editorials by Patrick Buchanan, who lives in Washington, you’d see that Beltway is its own world with its own concerns. Washington is full of think tanks, including powerful libertarian think tanks like Cato, but even groups like the latter are often just by-government-workers-for-government-workers institutions where staffers for senators and representatives, lobbyists, and policy wonks keep coming in and out in between jobs. Washington has had people of all schools of thought (even a few Trotskyist philosophers), but they often see it as purely abstract dining room conversation material and secondary to keeping government status quo.
It’s the same story in Brussels, Cairo, Buenos Aires, or elsewhere. All over the world.
Meanwhile, in this forum and the rest of the internet, we can just say whatever we want about Randall Paul or whomsoever, and it doesn’t make a difference. It’s purely leisure and socializing.
You ask why should people who love individual freedom and free markets seek to be represented? You can’t be serious. Maybe because some of us haven’t resigned ourselves to slavery just yet. Instead of bitching about how the Tea Partiers are full of Christian fundamentalists, maybe some of us should join and try to become leaders of this mini-rebellion. We need to be bringing to light the evils of things like central banks, debt-based money, and fractional reserve banking. The media will never bring up these issues, and political parties will never acknowledge them. We will never be invited to the party-- so we’ll just have to crash it!
Tyranny can be slowed through peaceful means, or you can just slaughter the statists and start all over again, and then roll the dice as to what you’ll get. Personally, I prefer the later, but I’ll settle for a little drum beating and civil disobedience if there’s a chance my children won’t end up in abject servitude. And if the likes of Rand Paul or even Sarah Palin want to seek office by demonstrating that they can hand us back some lost liberties, I will judge them on their results and hold them accountable.
“Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt” – Those without power cannot defend freedom.
No wonder libertarian values never get decent representation in government.
You mean aside from it being inherently contradictory? Political libertarianism is a recipe for failure and iniquity
Instead of bitching about how the Tea Partiers are full of Christian fundamentalists, maybe some of us should join and try to become leaders of this mini-rebellion.
Congratulations, you’re now the leader of a bunch of atavistic morons with no political power who can’t differentiate between Mises and Dick Armee. I think I’d rather go it alone than with those clowns. Populism never achieved anything worthwhile except by accident.
