Put into practice, libertarianism can make a mess. If parents have the right to endanger others by not getting their children immunized, why cant individuals decide whether theyre too drunk to drive? writes syndicated columnist Froma Harrop.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul believes that vaccinating children should be up to the parents, an increasingly unpopular view after recent outbreaks of measles, mumps and other diseases. And throwing a newts eye of quack science into the vat, the Kentucky Republican promotes the myth that these shots put children at risk.

The political results have been toil and trouble.

Its not easy being a politician and a principled libertarian. One who believes in the primacy of individual freedom often takes stances far from the mainstream. It is the true libertarians lot to be unconventional, to bravely accept unwanted consequences in the name of liberty. By not going that extra philosophical mile and adding junk science to the mix Paul comes off as merely weird.

He was already fighting blowback when he ventured into an interview with CNBCs Kelly Evans.

Well, I guess being for freedom would be really unusual, he responded to a question about whether vaccinations should be voluntary. I dont understand why that would be controversial.

Does he not? Then he again gave credence to crazy talk of healthy children ending up with profound mental disorders after being vaccinated.

When the chat moved to taxes and Evans challenged some of his statements, he shushed her as if she were a little girl. Calm down a bit here, Kelly, he said.

Clearly, it wasnt Kelly who needed calming.

By the end, Paul had accused Evans of being argumentative and blamed the media for distorting positions he had left purposely vague. Not his finest hour.

Continued here:

What makes Rand Paul strange