Korean Job Discussion Forums

[asylum seeker]

This article says it all:

[Fox]

[Senior]

Rand Paul doesn't claim to be a libertarian. He is a Republican.

[Senior]

[Sergio Stefanuto]

[kabrams]

Does he consider himself a Tea Partier, a Republican or something else? I don't quite have a grasp on his position.

[Senior]

[kabrams]

[Senior]

[kabrams]

[On the other hand]

I agree that a google search would not really give the kind of answer that kabrams was looking for. Obviously, Rand Paul is a member of the Republican party, and he seems to have a lot of support from Tea Partiers. I think what kabrams was getting at was how does he really regard himself apart from whatever labels are attached to him, which is not the kind of thing you're gonna just find out by googling his name and scanning a few articles.

Presumably, kabrams was hoping that posters who have followed his career might be able to shed some light on the nuances of RP's position. I don't think I could be a lot of help, since I've only been following him with any degree of attention for the past few weeks. However, it seems to me that the picture which is shaping up of him ideologically is that he is a fairly consistent libertarain, allied to the Republican party for strategic reasons. Others may have a different view.

[The Happy Warrior]

As of now, I am planning to vote for Rand Paul to replace the Senate seat left vacant by Senator Bunning. This is contrast to almost all the liberals who complain about Rand Paul on this site, who will not have the chance to vote against Rand Paul, for the simple reason that they do not reside in Kentucky.

I don't really give a flying ---- about his positions on the oil spill or the Civil Rights Act. Slightly more important to determining his fitness as an elected official will be his commitment to charity, namely, he founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic.

But all of these are distractions compared to his core position: He's against the spiraling Federal deficit and he's against expanding the government when the government can't pay its current accounts. Sure, he supports coal, restricting immigration, and even the horse industry. I wonder why? Could it be that his electorate isn't Southern California? But as far as genuinely national positions go, he wants to curb the power of the Federal Reserve, is against the bailouts, and actually talks about curbing Federal spending rather than bringing back goodies for his district (yes, he'll probably do what his father does: attach goodies to bills and then vote against them).

He's not a very effective national politician. He can't pivot and twist quite as artfully as Obama can. He's not a very compelling public speaker. He'd be boring except that he says silly things sometimes, and this is pounced upon by the party supporting increasingly unpopular Obama (you know, the guy who's job it is to clean up the oil spill).

But he cares about the issues I care about. So I will vote for him. Now, go ahead. Resume with heckling the libertarian la-la loony.

[Sergio Stefanuto]

[ontheway]

The Libertarian position on the oil spill is that BP and other individuals and businesses directly involved in this incident or accident are liable for ALL costs of the cleanup. It doesn't matter whether it was due to negligence, a deliberate failure to follow proper engineering standards in ocean drilling (which is probably the case here), just an accident or an act of god, BP (and others ... ) are liable for ALL costs.

This means in a Libertarian society, every engineer, manager, the rig owner and the operators, the responsible workers, managers and businesses will all use their best efforts to prevent such "accidents."

Any determination of blame could and should be used in determining if any criminal charges will be filed.

Of course, if cleaned up properly and if the parties are required to pay as they would be in a Libertarian world, there could be many bankruptcies at the end of this mess.



In the socialist world of regulation that we live in, there are limitations on liability that will exculpate or at least drastically reduce the financial cost for many individuals and businesses. The oil will not be cleaned up as much as possible, and taxpayers will be forced to pay the private costs.

Since most managers, workers, and many of the businesses will not be exposed to any financial cost due to this accident in our socialist world of regulated businesses, they take risks which can lead to financial rewards if successful but, for many of the actors, carry no financial risk.


Sounds a lot like what just happened with the banks and the Federal Reserve.


Government regulation always fails.

Liberty is the answer.

[kabrams]