7 ms·

This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not j

by lubos 12y ago

This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds. For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. He doesn't like energy regulations and believes free market should dictate the energy prices. Too bad when California deregulated their energy market, the prices went up 10x in some cases due to market manipulations by Enron and similar. And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc... Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

jfaucett 12y ago
Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions) Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)
- marincounty 12y ago
  "Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, also asserts that he's heard of cases where vaccines have caused "profound mental disorders." "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input." http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-effects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-eff... I was kind of shocked when I heard a Ophthalmologist make such a pandering comment. He is a trained Doctor? I won't argue Libertinism on this site. I have a feeling this link will get more comments than when Paul Graham told us to be nice--essentially because we are jealous of successful people?
  - maratd 12y ago
    > I was kind of shocked What's so shocking about letting parents decide what medical treatment their children undergo? He has repeatedly said that parents should get their children vaccinated. And they should. Parents who don't are irresponsible, both socially and toward their children. However, should and must are two very different words. When you start talking about mandatory, you're talking about cops breaking down doors, taking children away, and vaccinating them by force. Is that what you support? That's sick.
    - lubos 12y ago
      Another straw-man argument against mandatory vaccination. Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines or denied access to government social programs.
      - maratd 12y ago
        > Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines So you write me that ticket and I shove it down my pants, wipe my ass with it, and throw it in your direction. What then? You want to know what happens when you don't pay the government's fines? http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jai... So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? I just want to know where you stand. Personally, I think we're better off with a public shaming campaign, same as we did with smoking, but apparently I'm soft?
        s0x 12y ago
        > So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? Yes.
        maratd 12y ago
        > Yes. Thank you. That's the truth. I very rarely find myself a moderate on things, but both sides of this argument make me sick. The selfish parents who claim vaccines cause autism and who are really riding on herd immunity, while avoiding the relatively minor risks involved with vaccination ... and people like you who think that the solution is to use force and throw these people in jail. A little shaming will go a long way. Both sides have jumped to absurd extremes.
angersock 12y ago
And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc... So, this is an interesting ad-hominem, but something to consider is that, if a candidate is against pervasive government influence, they probably are also against using the .gov to enforce their ideology on other people.
joshuapants 12y ago
I disagree with many of Rand Paul's stances, but I think you're being misleading in saying that his stance on vaccination is related to his religious views. You should probably edit your comment to put that under a different category (like the preceding three blocks relating to his libertarian views).
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
He's a traditional U.S. states' rights conservative, an ideal intersecting with classical liberalism - less common these days due to the widespread influence of neoconservatism. He doesn't really touch on deeper libertarian or even minarchist philosophy at all. His stringent views on border security are also unusual for it (unless you're Hans-Hermann Hoppe). His platform ultimately rests on anti-federalism.
- researcher88 12y ago
  Don't you mean federalism? A lot of people seem to use it to signify states rights and a balance of power. Such as the historian podcaster Dan Carlin. Edit- I can't reply below but you are using the term incorrectly and in the context of Anti-Federalists from the 18th century. From Wikipedia on federalism: > In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense.
  - morgante 12y ago
    No, federalism is what led to having a federal government in the first place (binding together the states into a nation). The anti-federalists advocated for states rights and against a strong federal government.
lettergram 12y ago
Alright, two things.. (1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point... (2) "His religious agenda" he's made it clear he doesn't have a agenda, he's not going to push any religious agenda because he seems (at least) to support the constitution. This means that, (2a) Rand seems to support the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court all being separate. Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded. It's actually pretty awesome if you ask me, we can work together to defend our country, but live the way we want. That is the American dream.
- morgante 12y ago
  > Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.
    - morgante 12y ago
      I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.
bsbechtel 12y ago
I take it you aren't one who has made any investments in Bitcoin over the past few years.
Alex3917 12y ago
> Even a broken clock is right two times a day. What matters though is which of these policies would actually get implemented if he becomes president. My guess is that ending NSA surveillance and the war on drugs would, the others not so much. You'd probably get a couple bad laws and a couple bad Supreme Court justices, but that's not much worse than you'd get with anyone else. I probably wouldn't vote for him for president, but I'd have no problem with him winning the Republican primary.
morgante 12y ago
I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian.
- lubos 12y ago
  Well, there is also something called "Christian libertarianism". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism
  - ende 12y ago
    There's also something called Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). As a concept, it defies the strict ordering of the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism is probably best not defined as a noun but as an adjective.
- natmaster 12y ago
  While Rand Paul is not a libertarian (this is a concept promoted by the media to make him seem radical), your understanding of abortion issues is quite off. The real debate about abortion is over when life that deserves protecting begins. There is nothing else anyone disagrees with. If the fetus was an animal PETA would be the only ones having issue; if the fetus was dead noone would have issue with removing it. Some people believe that because a baby is not yet outside its mother, it has no rights. Other believe that until a baby is named, it has no rights. That is what the issue is about, and thinking otherwise you might as well not engage because you will go in circles all day. As far as same-sex marriage, Rand Paul thinks it is not the federal government's responsibility to regulate that. Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy.
  - morgante 12y ago
    I don't think Rand Paul is a libertarian (I was simply responding to the parent). As for abortion, even if you consider the fetus a "person," I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. > Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy. Delegating to the states is very different from removing the regulation. The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation.
ftwinnovations 12y ago
Everyone has different opinions, such as Rand Paul's view on family/abortion/etc. Some people agree with his views, others don't. However beyond that, you should be more educated before spouting historical "facts". California Energy Deregulation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/13/after-decades-of-doubt-deregulation-delivers-lower-electricity-prices/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/13/after... Federal Reserve History: https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/federal-100-years-destroying-purchase-power-money-015016988.html https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/federal-100-years-de... In this case, your clock is simply wrong 24 hours a day.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
There is no such thing as a good candidate overall. Different citizens want different things. But if the positions Rand Paul takes that you disagree with are the ones shared by other Republicans then you should still want Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination. Because if a Republican wins in the general election then at least it will be a Republican with the right position on mass surveillance, and if a Democrat wins then it will be a Democrat forced by Rand Paul to take more sensible positions on the issues that Rand Paul is right about.
natmaster 12y ago
Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government makes energy cheaper by paying for it by taxing you more, you are just lying to yourself. "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. "anti same-sex marriage" - "I think the way to fix DOMA is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue [of same sex marriage], and I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in.", Rand Paul "vaccination" - http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rand-paul-vaccine-20150212-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-ran... So hey, maybe you disagree with some of his positions after you found out what they actually are. Is that enough to say, you shouldn't care at all about privacy, the military industrial complex, foreign entanglements that make us less safe, more drones strikes on civilians, and a corrupt, racist criminal justice system? I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself.
- azar1 12y ago
  "third-trimester abortions" - Excellent straw man. How about his proposed personhood legislation? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign...
  - natmaster 12y ago
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan...
- MCRed 12y ago
  I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it. Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies. I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.
pdonis 12y ago
> FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. If you mean "most stable" in the sense that all the others fared even worse, I guess I can't argue with that. But I'm not sure the word "stable" is the best one to describe the USD since the Fed was created. A "stable" currency would not, I think, have inflated by a factor of about 30 (especially since, before the Fed was created, the USD's value was relatively constant, on average, over time).
- atom-morgan 12y ago
  Purchasing power of USD: http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/long_term_value_US_dollar.gif http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads...
  - pdonis 12y ago
    I like this one even better: http://www.economics-charts.com/cpi/cpi-1800-2005.html http://www.economics-charts.com/cpi/cpi-1800-2005.html First, it goes back to 1800; second, it's from the Fed itself, which means it's doubly entertaining. For example, I love this little note in the "description and comments" section: Notice how the peaks in inflation over the last 200 years have coincided with major wars. But don't notice at all how there was, on average, no inflation until after the Fed was created, but since then it's skyrocketed. No, these aren't the droids you're looking for.
crazy1van 12y ago
> Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Yes, but most likely no candidate will line up with a person's beliefs 100%, so it becomes about choosing the candidate who agrees with you on your highest priority issues. Judging from the number of posts on that make the front page of HN about the surveillance state, I would guess that this issue is one that many people here would vote based on.
MCRed 12y ago
Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? The US Dollar has lost at least that, probably closer to %99.9999, though it's harder to measure now that the fed is not giving us reliable stats anymore. Do you realize the FED is a private bank, owned by the upper %1 of the %1? And that giving them an interest rate on ever dollar in circulation was probably the worst example of a government granted monopoly ever? Do you realize that the incentives are completely aligned against us? The government wants to deficit spend with impunity, the fed wants to collect rent on the entire economy, so the fed prints money, and makes it look like it's not been irresponsible in doing so? (For instance, via the FOMC, by manipulating the gold price) It's really amazing to me that Liberals seem to never have met a corporation they like, yet they are universally in favor of the Federal Reserve. Maybe you don't realize it's a private corporation? Yeah, yeah the governing board is appointed, blah blah, that's like saying one fox appointed another to make sure the henhouse was safe. And now, thanks to Obama, the Fed has the power to FORCIBLY MERGE smaller banks. No way that could be abused, right? Read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Learn the fed's history. It's not exactly secret this stuff. But most people never get told. And of course the fed isn't going to advertise it.
- mkautzm 12y ago
  > Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? Yeah, I don't understand how inflation works either.
  - researcher88 12y ago
    Well you can't really be a Keynesian and think inflation is bad. Who does it favor? Governmentts and the rich who get the new money first. For regular people, it encourages them to spend money now and not save. And the only way around it is to invest in the stock market etc where they may make mistakes. As for your implied notion that it's been stable inflation, I'm not so sure. In the last 40 years, the average price of key foods have increased 400 to 500% when agricultural science and distribution has improved dramatically.
- 13years 12y ago
  Thank you! Good to see at least some people are awake. Although a bit disappointing more didn't point this out.
joelrunyon 12y ago
He would have authority over the NSA. That's something he could directly end. However, FED / Deregulation, abortion, same-sex marriage & vaccination are not things that can be resolved by an executive order. Every 4 years, people have the same arguments about the same things and they're all generally about things that Congress controls - not the President. And the popular ones (abortion, gun control, etc) haven't really changed all that much at all.
- sukilot 12y ago
  Obama promised to end Guantanamo bay antiterrorism/whatever, which is executive branch.
  - joelrunyon 12y ago
    That's on Obama. I don't see how that has any bearing on Rand.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      Which he also is not in direct control of since he was blocked - repeatedly - from transferring Guantanamo prisoners to the normal penitentiary system to stand trial in US states.
agorabinary 12y ago
1. The Federal Reserve is not an acronym. Neither is it an example of a successful government program, when it is explicitly a public-private institution that only serves to guarantee government blank-check spending and easy credit kickbacks to Wall Street. 2. If the free market dictating prices causes such rampant price gouging and monopolization, then why don't we see this in industries that are relatively deregulated like technology or hospitality, as opposed to the most regulated, ie. wall street? The power of industry disruption by nascent startups is systematically more powerful than regulators that have always, throughout history, been moved more by regulatory capture than by populist idealism. 3. The Paul's tend to favor the states deciding social issues.
wdr1 12y ago
> But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. That's complete bullcrap. The most stable for the last 100 years (1915 - present) is the Swiss Franc.

by lubos 12y ago

jfaucett 12y ago

Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions) Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)

marincounty 12y ago
"Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, also asserts that he's heard of cases where vaccines have caused "profound mental disorders." "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input." http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-effects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-eff... I was kind of shocked when I heard a Ophthalmologist make such a pandering comment. He is a trained Doctor? I won't argue Libertinism on this site. I have a feeling this link will get more comments than when Paul Graham told us to be nice--essentially because we are jealous of successful people?
- maratd 12y ago
  > I was kind of shocked What's so shocking about letting parents decide what medical treatment their children undergo? He has repeatedly said that parents should get their children vaccinated. And they should. Parents who don't are irresponsible, both socially and toward their children. However, should and must are two very different words. When you start talking about mandatory, you're talking about cops breaking down doors, taking children away, and vaccinating them by force. Is that what you support? That's sick.
  - lubos 12y ago
    Another straw-man argument against mandatory vaccination. Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines or denied access to government social programs.
    - maratd 12y ago
      > Mandatory also means you might be subject to fines So you write me that ticket and I shove it down my pants, wipe my ass with it, and throw it in your direction. What then? You want to know what happens when you don't pay the government's fines? http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jai... So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? I just want to know where you stand. Personally, I think we're better off with a public shaming campaign, same as we did with smoking, but apparently I'm soft?
      - s0x 12y ago
        > So you're OK with throwing people in jail for not performing a medical procedure on their children? Yes.
        maratd 12y ago
        > Yes. Thank you. That's the truth. I very rarely find myself a moderate on things, but both sides of this argument make me sick. The selfish parents who claim vaccines cause autism and who are really riding on herd immunity, while avoiding the relatively minor risks involved with vaccination ... and people like you who think that the solution is to use force and throw these people in jail. A little shaming will go a long way. Both sides have jumped to absurd extremes.

angersock 12y ago

And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc... So, this is an interesting ad-hominem, but something to consider is that, if a candidate is against pervasive government influence, they probably are also against using the .gov to enforce their ideology on other people.

joshuapants 12y ago

I disagree with many of Rand Paul's stances, but I think you're being misleading in saying that his stance on vaccination is related to his religious views. You should probably edit your comment to put that under a different category (like the preceding three blocks relating to his libertarian views).

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

He's a traditional U.S. states' rights conservative, an ideal intersecting with classical liberalism - less common these days due to the widespread influence of neoconservatism. He doesn't really touch on deeper libertarian or even minarchist philosophy at all. His stringent views on border security are also unusual for it (unless you're Hans-Hermann Hoppe). His platform ultimately rests on anti-federalism.

researcher88 12y ago
Don't you mean federalism? A lot of people seem to use it to signify states rights and a balance of power. Such as the historian podcaster Dan Carlin. Edit- I can't reply below but you are using the term incorrectly and in the context of Anti-Federalists from the 18th century. From Wikipedia on federalism: > In contrast, Europe has a greater history of unitary states than North America, thus European "federalism" argues for a weaker central government, relative to a unitary state. The modern American usage of the word is much closer to the European sense.
- morgante 12y ago
  No, federalism is what led to having a federal government in the first place (binding together the states into a nation). The anti-federalists advocated for states rights and against a strong federal government.

lettergram 12y ago

Alright, two things.. (1) It seems you are just dismissing him and his father have similar ideas, which aren't necessarily any crazier than every other politician ever (i.e. social security is so awesome). Rand and Ron Paul both supported STATES rights, which lets be honest, makes it possible to move between states and have different taxes, laws, and unique experiences. This leads me to my second point... (2) "His religious agenda" he's made it clear he doesn't have a agenda, he's not going to push any religious agenda because he seems (at least) to support the constitution. This means that, (2a) Rand seems to support the President, Senate, House, and Supreme court all being separate. Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. (2b) Supporting the policy of letting the states determine their laws seems probably the most American thing to do. If you don't like it, you just move to a different state where people are like minded. It's actually pretty awesome if you ask me, we can work together to defend our country, but live the way we want. That is the American dream.

morgante 12y ago
> Constitutionally, the president doesn't control a state religion, abortion, marriage, etc. The Establishment Clause is pretty clear that states should not and cannot enact state religions, and its up to the federal government to enforce that. The fact that Rand Paul is clearly biased by his religion makes him distinctly un-libertarian.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  It seems like you're grasping at straws. Good luck finding a single human anywhere that isn't biased in some way. I'm also not aware of any Libertarian Cabal documents stating that nobody with vaguely libertarian views can have a religion, or that in having a religion one is so tainted as to be unable to compartmentalize one's personal and professional lives.
  - morgante 12y ago
    I never said libertarians can't be religious. Rather, it's a fundamental tenant of libertarianism that you should not use the organ of government to enforce your religious views on others. On numerous occasions, Paul has referenced religious motivations for creating social policies. For example, he is opposed to same-sex marriage because it "offends him." Paul is not a libertarian. He's just a standard anti-Federalist Republican.

bsbechtel 12y ago

I take it you aren't one who has made any investments in Bitcoin over the past few years.

Alex3917 12y ago

> Even a broken clock is right two times a day. What matters though is which of these policies would actually get implemented if he becomes president. My guess is that ending NSA surveillance and the war on drugs would, the others not so much. You'd probably get a couple bad laws and a couple bad Supreme Court justices, but that's not much worse than you'd get with anyone else. I probably wouldn't vote for him for president, but I'd have no problem with him winning the Republican primary.

morgante 12y ago

I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and same-sex marriages a libertarian.

lubos 12y ago
Well, there is also something called "Christian libertarianism". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism
- ende 12y ago
  There's also something called Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). As a concept, it defies the strict ordering of the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism is probably best not defined as a noun but as an adjective.
natmaster 12y ago
While Rand Paul is not a libertarian (this is a concept promoted by the media to make him seem radical), your understanding of abortion issues is quite off. The real debate about abortion is over when life that deserves protecting begins. There is nothing else anyone disagrees with. If the fetus was an animal PETA would be the only ones having issue; if the fetus was dead noone would have issue with removing it. Some people believe that because a baby is not yet outside its mother, it has no rights. Other believe that until a baby is named, it has no rights. That is what the issue is about, and thinking otherwise you might as well not engage because you will go in circles all day. As far as same-sex marriage, Rand Paul thinks it is not the federal government's responsibility to regulate that. Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy.
- morgante 12y ago
  I don't think Rand Paul is a libertarian (I was simply responding to the parent). As for abortion, even if you consider the fetus a "person," I don't see how a libertarian would make a good case for the government to force the mother to continue to sustain and provide for it. > Removing regulation over social issues from government IS a very libertarian philosophy. Delegating to the states is very different from removing the regulation. The libertarian thing to do would be to ban such regulation.

ftwinnovations 12y ago

Everyone has different opinions, such as Rand Paul's view on family/abortion/etc. Some people agree with his views, others don't. However beyond that, you should be more educated before spouting historical "facts". California Energy Deregulation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/13/after-decades-of-doubt-deregulation-delivers-lower-electricity-prices/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/10/13/after... Federal Reserve History: https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/federal-100-years-destroying-purchase-power-money-015016988.html https://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/federal-100-years-de... In this case, your clock is simply wrong 24 hours a day.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

There is no such thing as a good candidate overall. Different citizens want different things. But if the positions Rand Paul takes that you disagree with are the ones shared by other Republicans then you should still want Rand Paul to win the Republican nomination. Because if a Republican wins in the general election then at least it will be a Republican with the right position on mass surveillance, and if a Democrat wins then it will be a Democrat forced by Rand Paul to take more sensible positions on the issues that Rand Paul is right about.

natmaster 12y ago

Please leave your anti-science anti-intellectual comments outside of hacker news. "FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years" - baseless argument. comparing fiat money to fiat money says nothing about efficacy of fiat money. "Too bad when California deregulated their energy market..." - http://www.tylervigen.com/ http://www.tylervigen.com/ Furthermore, where does this money appear from? If the government makes energy cheaper by paying for it by taxing you more, you are just lying to yourself. "anti-abortion" - please explain why third-trimester abortions should be allowed. the baby can live by being born at that point, and the mother has had plenty of time to deal with the issue. but sure, you can disagree with that, and I won't debate it here. "anti same-sex marriage" - "I think the way to fix DOMA is maybe to try to make all of our laws more neutral towards the issue [of same sex marriage], and I don't want the government promoting something I don't believe in.", Rand Paul "vaccination" - http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-rand-paul-vaccine-20150212-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-ran... So hey, maybe you disagree with some of his positions after you found out what they actually are. Is that enough to say, you shouldn't care at all about privacy, the military industrial complex, foreign entanglements that make us less safe, more drones strikes on civilians, and a corrupt, racist criminal justice system? I recommend becoming informed and making a rational decision about such things instead of lying to yourself.

azar1 12y ago
"third-trimester abortions" - Excellent straw man. How about his proposed personhood legislation? https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign...
- natmaster 12y ago
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan.html http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.sullivan...
MCRed 12y ago
I'm the kind of guy who would marry another guy. So, I have standing to have an opinion about Gay Marriage. I don't want the government in marriage AT ALL. Making the laws "more neutral" means getting gender out of the laws. This is a correct first step. Marriage is merely an expression of the right of freedom of association, which all people have. You don't need new laws to make it exist. But you should get rid of laws that violate it. Alas, most gays and lesbians are more leftist and wanted some sort of recognition form the government.... if they had taken the position of getting government out of marriage completely, they would have found many christians (whose ideas of what their marriages should be are regularly infringed upon by government) as allies. I'll take Rand Pauls government out of marriage over Bill Clinton (signed DOMA) and the democrats (3/4 of which voted for DOMA) and Obama (he was anti-gay marriage before he was "for" it) anyday.

pdonis 12y ago

> FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. If you mean "most stable" in the sense that all the others fared even worse, I guess I can't argue with that. But I'm not sure the word "stable" is the best one to describe the USD since the Fed was created. A "stable" currency would not, I think, have inflated by a factor of about 30 (especially since, before the Fed was created, the USD's value was relatively constant, on average, over time).

atom-morgan 12y ago
Purchasing power of USD: http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/long_term_value_US_dollar.gif http://goldsilverworldscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads...
- pdonis 12y ago
  I like this one even better: http://www.economics-charts.com/cpi/cpi-1800-2005.html http://www.economics-charts.com/cpi/cpi-1800-2005.html First, it goes back to 1800; second, it's from the Fed itself, which means it's doubly entertaining. For example, I love this little note in the "description and comments" section: Notice how the peaks in inflation over the last 200 years have coincided with major wars. But don't notice at all how there was, on average, no inflation until after the Fed was created, but since then it's skyrocketed. No, these aren't the droids you're looking for.

crazy1van 12y ago

> Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Yes, but most likely no candidate will line up with a person's beliefs 100%, so it becomes about choosing the candidate who agrees with you on your highest priority issues. Judging from the number of posts on that make the front page of HN about the surveillance state, I would guess that this issue is one that many people here would vote based on.

MCRed 12y ago

Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? The US Dollar has lost at least that, probably closer to %99.9999, though it's harder to measure now that the fed is not giving us reliable stats anymore. Do you realize the FED is a private bank, owned by the upper %1 of the %1? And that giving them an interest rate on ever dollar in circulation was probably the worst example of a government granted monopoly ever? Do you realize that the incentives are completely aligned against us? The government wants to deficit spend with impunity, the fed wants to collect rent on the entire economy, so the fed prints money, and makes it look like it's not been irresponsible in doing so? (For instance, via the FOMC, by manipulating the gold price) It's really amazing to me that Liberals seem to never have met a corporation they like, yet they are universally in favor of the Federal Reserve. Maybe you don't realize it's a private corporation? Yeah, yeah the governing board is appointed, blah blah, that's like saying one fox appointed another to make sure the henhouse was safe. And now, thanks to Obama, the Fed has the power to FORCIBLY MERGE smaller banks. No way that could be abused, right? Read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Learn the fed's history. It's not exactly secret this stuff. But most people never get told. And of course the fed isn't going to advertise it.

mkautzm 12y ago
> Do you consider losing %98 of its value "stable"? Yeah, I don't understand how inflation works either.
- researcher88 12y ago
  Well you can't really be a Keynesian and think inflation is bad. Who does it favor? Governmentts and the rich who get the new money first. For regular people, it encourages them to spend money now and not save. And the only way around it is to invest in the stock market etc where they may make mistakes. As for your implied notion that it's been stable inflation, I'm not so sure. In the last 40 years, the average price of key foods have increased 400 to 500% when agricultural science and distribution has improved dramatically.
13years 12y ago
Thank you! Good to see at least some people are awake. Although a bit disappointing more didn't point this out.

joelrunyon 12y ago

He would have authority over the NSA. That's something he could directly end. However, FED / Deregulation, abortion, same-sex marriage & vaccination are not things that can be resolved by an executive order. Every 4 years, people have the same arguments about the same things and they're all generally about things that Congress controls - not the President. And the popular ones (abortion, gun control, etc) haven't really changed all that much at all.

sukilot 12y ago
Obama promised to end Guantanamo bay antiterrorism/whatever, which is executive branch.
- joelrunyon 12y ago
  That's on Obama. I don't see how that has any bearing on Rand.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Which he also is not in direct control of since he was blocked - repeatedly - from transferring Guantanamo prisoners to the normal penitentiary system to stand trial in US states.

agorabinary 12y ago

1. The Federal Reserve is not an acronym. Neither is it an example of a successful government program, when it is explicitly a public-private institution that only serves to guarantee government blank-check spending and easy credit kickbacks to Wall Street. 2. If the free market dictating prices causes such rampant price gouging and monopolization, then why don't we see this in industries that are relatively deregulated like technology or hospitality, as opposed to the most regulated, ie. wall street? The power of industry disruption by nascent startups is systematically more powerful than regulators that have always, throughout history, been moved more by regulatory capture than by populist idealism. 3. The Paul's tend to favor the states deciding social issues.

wdr1 12y ago

> But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. That's complete bullcrap. The most stable for the last 100 years (1915 - present) is the Swiss Franc.