Do Libertarians deserve better spokespeople than the Pauls?, MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell called the Pauls "paranoid, lying politicians" in a 9:20 minute video rant and, according to a Raw Story report "extended sympathy to who he called 'honest Libertarians' by saying "You deserve better spokesmen than Ron and Rand."
O'Donnell first ran a clip of Rand Paul saying "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" and followed it with a second clip in which he completely contradicts himself.
Then O'Donnell dissects Ron Paul's LewRocksell.com article about Boston authorities' handling of the search for the Boston Marathon bombers and claims his first paragraph has six sentences that contain five "lies" like "Forced lockdown," and " Militarized police riding tanks in the streets," and "Door-to-door armed searches without warrant."
To round it off, the MSNBC host then displays a Rand Paul quote which clearly contradicts his father's entire statement.
There's little doubt in this age of unyielding culture war that Ron Paul fans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans and many self-identified "honest libertarians" will soundly reject O'Donnell and adamantly defend their heroes. They'll also strenuously vilify O'Donnell as a liberal, a Democrat, a socialist, and worse.
Unfortunately, vilifying O'Donnell changes nothing.
Readers of Libertarian News Examiner, where Ron Paul is typically referred to as Libertarian-leaning or Libertarian-Republican while Rand Paul has been either tepidly accepted or openly challenged about his Libertarian creds, should be little surprised by any of this ("Are Ron Paul Republicans hijacking the libertarian movement?").
So while O'Donnell doesn't define "honest libertarian" Libertarian News Examiner will:
The fundamental definition of a libertarian is "one who accepts and consistently applies the Zero Aggression Principle."
This means never initiating or advocating the initiation of force, intimidation or fraud against another person or group while maintaining the right to use force in defense of self and others.
Does that describe Ron and Rand?
If not, "honest libertarians" should do what they always should do:
1. Reject the Pauls outright ("'Libertarian' Rand Paul approves legalized kidnapping and assassination bill"), or
2. Accept them as the most high profile spokespeople libertarianism has developed so far and relentlessly praise them when they're right and mercilessly challenge and correct them when they're wrong ("Mainstream Libertarianism versus the real thing").
All the while continuing to move the Modern American Libertarian Movement forward ("Where do libertarians come from?").
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: subscribe to my email alerts and then have fun hitting all those other social media buttons too.
Libertarians! What's happening in your area? Send me stories, photos, videos to publish in Libertarian News Examiner. greededitor@aol.com.
Read more Reed: North Texas news and commentary at Dallas Libertarian Examiner.
Also twiddling with Twitter and fiddling with Facebook.
O'Donnell first ran a clip of Rand Paul saying "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" and followed it with a second clip in which he completely contradicts himself.
Then O'Donnell dissects Ron Paul's LewRocksell.com article about Boston authorities' handling of the search for the Boston Marathon bombers and claims his first paragraph has six sentences that contain five "lies" like "Forced lockdown," and " Militarized police riding tanks in the streets," and "Door-to-door armed searches without warrant."
To round it off, the MSNBC host then displays a Rand Paul quote which clearly contradicts his father's entire statement.
There's little doubt in this age of unyielding culture war that Ron Paul fans, Libertarian-leaning Republicans and many self-identified "honest libertarians" will soundly reject O'Donnell and adamantly defend their heroes. They'll also strenuously vilify O'Donnell as a liberal, a Democrat, a socialist, and worse.
Unfortunately, vilifying O'Donnell changes nothing.
Readers of Libertarian News Examiner, where Ron Paul is typically referred to as Libertarian-leaning or Libertarian-Republican while Rand Paul has been either tepidly accepted or openly challenged about his Libertarian creds, should be little surprised by any of this ("Are Ron Paul Republicans hijacking the libertarian movement?").
So while O'Donnell doesn't define "honest libertarian" Libertarian News Examiner will:
The fundamental definition of a libertarian is "one who accepts and consistently applies the Zero Aggression Principle."
This means never initiating or advocating the initiation of force, intimidation or fraud against another person or group while maintaining the right to use force in defense of self and others.
Does that describe Ron and Rand?
If not, "honest libertarians" should do what they always should do:
1. Reject the Pauls outright ("'Libertarian' Rand Paul approves legalized kidnapping and assassination bill"), or
2. Accept them as the most high profile spokespeople libertarianism has developed so far and relentlessly praise them when they're right and mercilessly challenge and correct them when they're wrong ("Mainstream Libertarianism versus the real thing").
All the while continuing to move the Modern American Libertarian Movement forward ("Where do libertarians come from?").
Don't miss a NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN NEWS EXAMINER article: subscribe to my email alerts and then have fun hitting all those other social media buttons too.
Libertarians! What's happening in your area? Send me stories, photos, videos to publish in Libertarian News Examiner. greededitor@aol.com.
Read more Reed: North Texas news and commentary at Dallas Libertarian Examiner.
Also twiddling with Twitter and fiddling with Facebook.
0 comments:
Post a Comment