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

Libertarianism, like its ideological cousin neoliberalism, is one of those words that people in the political world use a lot without establishing whether everyone agrees on its meaning. This doesnt really matter in the vast majority of cases (because nothing that happens during a fight in a comment thread or on Twitter matters). But as support for libertarian-backed causes like marriage equality, opposition to the war on drugs, and resistance against the rise of mass incarceration become ever-greater parts of U.S. politics, the definition of libertarianism will matter more, too for the sake of apportioning credit and blame, if nothing else.

In the interest of nailing down a famously elusive and controversial term, then, Salon recently spoke over the phone with David Boaz, longtime member of the influential and Koch-founded Cato Institute think tank and author of Libertarianism: A Primer, which was just updated and rereleased as The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom. Our discussion touched on the big issues mentioned above, as well as Boazs thoughts on what liberals and conservatives misunderstand about libertarianism, and why he thinks his favored political philosophys future is so bright. Our conversation is below and has been edited for clarity and length.

If you had to pick one defining or differentiating characteristic of the libertarian mind, what would it be?

The first line of the book says that libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom, so what distinguishes libertarians is their commitment to freedom. That can manifest itself in lots of different issues, from marijuana and gay marriage to smaller government and lower taxes, but the fundamental idea of freedom as the proper political condition for society is the thing that unites libertarians.

Wouldnt most Americans say they care deeply about freedom, though? So is it the definition of freedom that distinguishes libertarianism from liberalism and conservatism? Or is it where freedom ends up in the hierarchy of values?

In America, virtually everybody comes out of the classical liberal tradition. The classical liberal tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill stresses freedom under law and limited government and most Americans share that. The difference with libertarians is that we do make freedom our political priority. Freedom is not necessarily any persons primary value. Your primary value may be courage or friendship or love or compassion or the arts; but freedom is the primary political value for libertarians.

I do think that is a difference between libertarians and liberals or conservatives who value freedom but also value other things. Modern American liberals would say, I believe, that they value equality along with freedom. Libertarians would tend to respond, well, in the real world you get more equality when you have freedom and free markets, though libertarians certainly believe in equal rights and equal freedom. Some conservatives value doing Gods will or maintaining social order or maintaining tradition along with freedom.

In that sense, I do think libertarians put freedom at the center of their political philosophy in a way that many liberals and conservatives do not.

If you had to pick one thing about libertarianism that liberals misunderstand the most, what would it be?

I think there is first a misunderstanding that libertarians are conservatives and I think thats wrong. Libertarians are classical liberals. We trace our heritage back to, not the aristocracy or established church, but to the liberal thinkers and activists who challenged those institutions.

Read more:

Thats something that should make libertarians nervous: Inside the tumultuous rise of an American ideology

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Libertarians believe themselves controversial and cool. Theyre desperate to package themselves as dangerous rebels, but in reality they are champions of conformity. Their irreverence and their opposition to political correctness is little more than a fashion accessory, disguising their subservience tofor all their protests against the political elitethe real elite.

Ayn Rand is the rebel queen of their icy kingdom, villifying empathy and solidarity. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.

Libertarians believe they are real rebels, because theyve politicized the protest of children who scream through tears, Youre not the boss of me. The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile navet.

As much as libertarians boast of having a political movement gaining in popularity, youre not the boss of me does not even rise to the most elementary level of politics. Aristotle translated politics into meaning the things concerning the polis, referring to the city, or in other words, the community. Confucius connected politics with ethics, and his ethics are attached to communal service with a moral system based on empathy. A political program, like that from the right, that eliminates empathy, and denies the collective, is anti-political.

Opposition to any conception of the public interest and common good, and the consistent rejection of any opportunity to organize communities in the interest of solidarity, is not only a vicious form of anti-politics, it is affirmation of Americas most dominant and harmful dogmas.In America, selfishness, like blue jeans or a black dress, never goes out of style. It is the style. The founding fathers, for all the hagiographic praise and worship they receive as ritual in America, had no significant interest in freedom beyond their own social station, regardless of the poetry they put on paper. Native Americans, women, black Americans, and anyone who did not own property could not vote, but taxation without representation was the rallying cry of the revolution. The founders reacted with righteous rage to an injustice to their class, but demonstrated no passion or prioritization of expanding their victory for liberty to anyone who did not look, think, or spend money like them.

Many years after the nations establishment as an independent republic, President Calvin Coolidge quipped, The chief business of the American people is business. It is easy to extrapolate from that unintentional indictment how, in a rejection of alternative conceptions of philosophy and morality, America continually reinforced Alexis De Tocquevilles prescient 1831 observation, As one digs deeper into the national character of Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: How much money will it bring in?

The disasters of reducing life, the governance of affairs, and the distribution of resources to such a shallow standard leaves wreckage where among the debris one can find human bodies. Studies indicate that nearly 18,000 Americans die every year because they lack comprehensive health insurance. Designing a healthcare system with the question, How much money will it bring in? at the center, kills instead of cures.

The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population.

It also leads to the elevation of crude utility as a measurement of anythings purpose or value. Richard Hofstadter, observed in his classicAnti-Intellectualism in American Life, that many Americans are highly intelligent, but their intelligence is functional, not intellectual. They excel at their occupational tasks, but do not invest the intellect or imagination in abstract, critical, or philosophical inquiries and ideas. If society is reducible to the individual, and the individual is reducible to consumer capacity, the duties of democracy and the pleasures of creativity stand little chance of competing with the call of the cash register.

Original post:

Libertarianism is for petulant children: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and the movements sad rebellion

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, seems to have no problem contradicting himself. The self-proclaimed constitutional conservative is typically lost in libertarian thought leading him to make inflammatory sexist, racist and overbearingly hypocritical comments on nearly every issue he faces. Whether hes attempting to police womens bodies, ignoring police brutality for stingy tobacco taxes, or speaking out against vaccines and posting himself receiving booster shots only days later, Ron Pauls son is one politician you can unabashedly hate or enjoy laughing at.

1. When Paul spoke outagainst vaccines:

I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

Click to enlarge.

Rand Paul /Twitter

2. When he backedvoter ID laws:

I dont think theres a problem with showing your ID, but I do think theres a problem with Republicans saying, Hey, our big issue for the campaign is going to be voter ID, because what it creates is a lot of African-Americans understandably remember the 40s and 50s in the South, and they remember suppression of the vote.

See the original post:

21 Rand Paul quotes that expose libertarianism for the con job it is