Way to omit a very important fact: Outside of the United States, Libertarian means "Libertarian Socialist," while popular United States Libertarianism is referred to as "Vulgar Libertarianism."

Essentially, Vulgar Libertarians have no opposition to *corporate* authoritarian rule. What they want is not a "free market," they want a market with state intervention that favors the rich.

Libertarian Socialists are the only true Libertarians, and writing garbage like this article only serves to prop up the totally artificial left/right conflict in a nation with two pro-state, pro-big business parties.

I want to buy some fucking clove cigarettes, god damnit.

Rand Paul, unsurprisingly, like his Dad, is White Male Christian Supremacist Trash.

By the time his handlers get a hold of him, he'll be indistinguishable from the rest of the GOP.
He's a nut, like the rest of the libertarians. Their platform is the worst possible manifestation of free-market fundamentalism.
It only appeals to certain ignorant social libertarians (the stoners) because of it's legalization of drugs.
Once our schools disappeared, people's wages went into a freefall, and police and firefighters became privatized, we'd be only a few steps above Sudan and Somalia in the scale of civilized democratic societies.

Free market my ass. Move to Russia for your free market, you ignorant fools.

@ stimpy - maybe there's a 'cool' libertarianism elsewhere in the world, but this article is about someone running for the US Senate, so it's the 'vulgar' flavor that is pertinent, and groovy kind is irrelevant to this article.

Personally, I welcome plenty of debate about libertarianism. I think many followers are ill-informed about the 'philosophy'. Ayn Rand (was Rand Paul named after her?) thought the greatest virtue was selfishness, and Alan Greenspan (a devotee of hers) believed that the federal government shouldn't investigate financial fraud. These ideas are so... 16th century!

If you think that this whacko can save our country than you are nuttier than a wagon load of pralines.

I'll put this in really simple terms: I don't want fascist fuckers, rich fuckers or rich fascist fuckers telling me what I can or can't do.

Absolutely everyone in politics is a rich fascist fucker who is friends with rich fuckers and fascist fuckers. If you are not rich or a fascist, you are getting raped. They need to be put to sleep.

What Libertarian ideas?
I've been listening to them for over 40 years and I haven't heard an idea for all their rambling.

Freedom is only possible when their is minimal government?
Neither original or new.
Just how is it different from anarchism?

The difference is that anarchism goes the full distance and is distrustful of any and all concentrations of power.
Why doesn't the concentration of power in NON governmental hands bother the Pauls?
It does most everyone else.

At least when power's in the hands of state officials there exists the POSSIBILITY of watch-dogging them.
Not so in corporationland.

An interesting true story:
In the 1930s the Germans rearmed and went from total destruction to having the best equipped armed forces in the world.
It took the rest of the world a very long time to catch up with them because news of their advancing threat to peace had been studiously withheld from the press.

How?
The cartels that were profiting from the rearmament also owned the German newspapers

Absent a strong PROGRESSIVE national government who is going to protect us? and provide for the common defense? and promote the general welfare?
and secure the blessings of liberty for us and our descendants?

against all enemies
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC

can you name a bigger enemy to peace and prosperity, to the people of the United States, than corporations as a group?

Is not BP a bigger threat to our well being than Osama Bin Laden?

The author forgets to mention all the good things about libertarianism. An end to all US military bases, an immediate withdrawal from all foreign wars, legalization of all drugs (thus ending the never ending drug war) legalization of prostitution (thus giving prostitutes the ability to stand up for themselves). Last and not least an end to the federal reserve.
I think these things would do more fundamental good for the world and America then anything the democrats can summon up.

I take it back (I just checked out his policies on his website): Rand Paul is no libertarian. His Pa stands for principles which he believes in. Thats why I like him. He's not a professional politician. But this guy stands for whatever will make him popular. He's just another goofball politician.

I see a lot of sniveling about the article but none of you goddamned libertarian clowns can present us with an explanation or description of how libertarianism differs from it.

I'm curious. How many of you people actually live, as I do, in the state that's probably going to be stupid enough to put Rand "Death Panel" Paul, Jim Bunning's hand-picked successor, in office? It was bad enough having to take responsibility for McConnell and Bunning, but having to bear the weight of this nut might just be too much! But past that, while I agree with a lot of what the article's saying, I refuse to get drawn into the debate of "whose is bigger" that the rest of you have going. When you hear what Paul and his followers are saying, this article doesn't sound implausible at all, but bear in mind that most people in this region are liable to close ranks when an "outsider" from somewhere like New York levels criticism, no matter how awful the candidate is.

2/2

Statism, of any kind (minarchist limited government all the way through totalitarianism), is incompatible with liberty since it advocates a group of people (whether it be a minority or a majority is irrelevant) with ownership over all the people and property in a declared area of jurisdiction. You may not think of the State in terms of "ownership", but that's what it is: The right to control.

Both Pauls support the idea of a State and are thus not libertarians. And no, they do not support the idea of a "limited" State as a temporary transition to a voluntary (stateless) society. For them, a "limited" State is the goal.

Libertarianism logically requires anarchism. Though not all anarchists are libertarians, all actual libertarians are anarchists (in the anti-State sense). Any "libertarian" who is not an anarchist is inconsistently applying the philosophy and thus is not representative of libertarianism.

Criticize Rand Paul all you want, or criticize libertarianism all you want, but don't conflate the two for a cheap strawman tactic.

Forget about definitions about libertarianism. Paul, both Pauls, call themselves libertarians. The truth is that they are both pre-civil rights era racists who still bemoan the desegregation of schools. They both are free market deregulating Republicans. They both would put anti-gay bills -- like what Bush tried to accomplish -- in the Constitution (recall the Federal Marriage Amendment). These guys are racist, neoliberal, pre-civil war nut-cases. They are John Rushdoony- made "Christians" and consort with the Rushdoony Family of White Male Christian Lunatics. Ron and Rand Paul are disgraces before the American Constitution and the reality of a civil society. They want the law of the jungle to replace the evolved democracies we see in France and Britain. They are prostitutes for Big Business and Business Rights, as opposed to the public's Civil Rights. All you characters on the Left kiss their stinking Republican assess because they are against foreign wars, but that's only because they are isolationists, not because they're peace loving characters! Ron Paul has stated that advice for matters relating to war should be taken out of the Bible (not kidding, folks, I spoke to one of Paul's staff members in Washington). Wake up, liberals, you are showing yourselves quite stupid.