Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

Whether Rand Paul supports the inalienable Rights of Person more or less is irrelevant if he still opposes the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

Libertarians do not support anarchy in the United States and we've created social contracts in our State Constitutions and US Constitution that do empower the government to use "force" to protect our inalienable Rights as well as the power of government to infringe upon our Freedom the Exercise our Inalienable Rights but such infringements upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights should be to the least extent possible and only based upon a pragmatic necessity related to the Protection the Inalienable Rights of ALL Persons in society. The belief that "acts of aggression" are completely unnecessary for government is a false belief. For example if the police don't have the authority to use an act of aggression to enforce the laws against murder then nothing prevents murder. If, as a society, we don't allow for pragmatic use of acts of aggression against a person then our government couldn't incarcerate a person convicted of a crime because limiting their "liberty" by incarceration is an act of aggression against them.

But this is general and I'll address two cases specific to Rand Paul as examples of his opposition to the Inalienable Rights of a Person.

http://www.newser.com/story/90452/rand-paul-opposes-citizenship-for-illegals-babies.html

"Natural Born Citizenship" that was recognzied in the United States since it was founded, and is a criteria for becoming a president enumerated in Article II of the US Constitution is an was always an Inalienable Right of the Person established by jus soli (i.e. the Right of Soil). Due to statutory laws that violated the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person the 14th Amendment was ratified to enumerate the criteria of jus soli (i.e. born in the United States and Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof) and protect this Inalienable Right. As with all Inalienable Rights it is that which is inherent in the Person not subject to any other Person. For example many propose jus sanguinis (i.e. the Right of Blood) where citizenship is dependent upon the citizenship of the parents but this cannot reflect "natural born citizenship" based upon an Inalienable Right of the Person because its dependent upon the parents and is not inherent in the person. Citizenship based upon jus sanguinis is always based upon statutory law and in not an inalienable Right.

As the US Supreme Court noted in the case of the United States v Kim Wong Ark his "natural" (inalienable) Right of Citizenship could not be denied based upon statutory law. Rand Paul believes that the Natural (Inalienable) Right of Citizenship based upon jus soli should be denied based upon the statutory immigration laws of Congress and that fails from both an Inalienable Rights standpoint because the Right is inherent in the child regardless of anything the parents do or don't do as well as from a Constitutional standpoint because statutory laws cannot override a Constitutionally Protected Right of the Person.

Rand Paul not only opposes the Inalienable Right but also opposes the US Constitution related to the Inalienable Right of Citizenship of the Person established by birth in the United States.

The next example is Rand Paul's opposition to abortion that violate the Inalienable Right of Self of the Woman.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...paul-lead-abortion-opposition-march-for-life/

The Woman is a Person and has the Inalienable Right of Self. While, as noted, the government can impose restrictions upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights based upon a pragmatic necessity in the Protection of the Inalienable Rights of ALL Persons in Society. The problem is that the "preborn" are not nor have they ever been considered "Persons" and this was an undisputed conclusion reached in the Roe v Wade decision by the US Supreme Court. From a purely Inalienable Rights standpoint there is no justification for any infrignments on Freedom to Exercise her Inalienable Right of Self by the Woman, a Person, related to having an abortion because in Exercising her Inalienable Rights she is not adversely affecting any other "Person's" Inalienable Rights.

What many "conservative" anti-abortionist like Rand Paul and his father fail to understand is that the Roe v Wade was a very progressive interpretation of the US Constitution because it allowed an infringement upon the woman's Freedom to Exercise her Inalienable Right of Self based upon the "potential personhood" of the fetus at viability. If the Supreme Court had used a strict interpretation of the Constitution then only the Woman had Rights as a Person and all anti-abortion laws would have been unconstitution. Roe v Wade was a huge victory for the anti-abortionists.
.
I haven't read that Rand Paul would actually support anti-abortion legislation but he has proposed legislation that would establish "personhood" for the preborn which would violate the Roe v Wade decision and be unconstitutional. He's also advocated not having the government pay for abortions which is somewhat silly because the federal government doesn't fund abortions. He does have personal beliefs and opinions related to when life begins and that is fine but when life begins is irrelevant to the Inalienable Rights of a Person because only "personhood" matters. Non-persons have no protected Rights under the US Constitution. I personally believe that Rand Paul would vote for a federal law banning abortion although I haven't read that specifically.

Bottom line we have two cases where Rand Pual opposes the Inalienable (natural) Right of Citizenship related to children born in the United States as well as the Inalienable Right of Self of the Woman to control her own body related to abortion.

A person cannot pick and choose to only support some Inalienable Rights while denying others. Either they support Inalienable Rights or they Don't. There is no middle ground. We can understand and accept some limitations imposed upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right based upon the delegated role of government to protect our Inalienable Rights but such limitations must be based upon a pragmatic necessity and should be to the least extent possible to provide the protection. We should never have laws that infringed upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right where no one elses Inalienable Rights are threatened or violated (e.g. the prohibitions against same-gender marriage are not protecting anyone's Inalienable Rights).

 

Rand Paul supports the Capital Gains Tax and the Capital Gains Tax is the largest single component of Crony Capitalism in the United States. If Rand Paul supported abolishing the Capital Gains tax we might make an argument that he opposes Crony Capitalism.

As also provided in the link Rand Paul endorses a Corporate Tax of 17% while the self-employed small business owner is subject to up to 39.6% in income taxes alone not including the self-employment tax. Why should a corporation be subjected to a maximum tax rate less than 1/2 of what a small business owner is subjected to? Once agian this is crony capitalism in action.

Fair taxation requires that every dollar of income is treated identically regardless of source and regardless of the entity receiving the income. So long as disparities exist based upon favoritism in the tax codes it reflects crony capitalism

 

You're still not showing me the "crony" part. Cite some people and companies he propped up OR accept that you want to talk about the progressive tax system instead and change your approach.

- - - Updated - - -

Who says? Want to take a poll on this site of "libertarians"?

This is a whole thread unto itself and I'll be glad to start it.

 

What a bunch of disgusting lies.

 

I love how this "libertarian" position of Shiva's means that instead of putting on the big boy pants and ignoring banal and bigoted people we should run to the government to force them to be nice to us.


Force is always okay if we have some "greater good" attached to it. If we learned anything from Lenin it is this: to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

 

If shiva is a libertarian, then I reject libertarianism as the stupidest ideology ever.

 

This is completely juxtiposed to my position. Racial prejudice and discrimination that denies equality of opportunity (violating the Rights of the Person) is not a government problem nor can the government fix it. It is created by the "People" and only the "People" can correct it by eliminating the bigoted prejudice that leads to discrimination and denial of equality of opportunity.

I'm a laizze-faire capitalist but laizze-faire capitalism can only exist if there isn't invidious discrimination in the economy where some are oppressed and others have an advantage. Everyone must have equality of opportunity for laizze-faire capitalism to propertly function. The small business owner cannot be subjected to higher taxation than the corporation. The individual with equal knowledge and experience cannot be discriminated against in employment based upon invidious criteria that serves no purpose to the enterprise.

Laizze-Faire capitalism cannot exist as long as people and enterprised don't have equality of opportunity to either succeed or fail based upon their merits.

When it comes to bigoted prejudice and discrimination this is way beyond any ability of government to address. At best it can address extreme cases and even then it's almost powerless. This is a problem that only we, the People, can address and correct.

 

Invidious discrimination in employment and compensation is an act of aggression against the person but many fail to understand that.

 

I'm addressing none of the rest of that bullcrap until you answer which "crony" Rand Paul allocated government subsidies to, created regulations for, etc.

Don't tell me about Mitt Romney. Don't talk to me about progressive taxes. Tell me which crony.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not. You're being ridiculous. We don't live in a one horse town anymore with one store and no other means of employment. No one has a right to be hired. They have a right to look for a job and/or start a business.

You would use force to make someone hire an individual or bake a cake for them with their body, their resources, and against their will but you won't tell a woman what she can do with her body when it comes to abortion.

Take the double standard back to progressive town where it belongs.

 

Wow this is probably one of the best posts I have read. I really need to get out of the Current Events forum

 

I think you are confusing hiring someone and taking their business. If I hire a male employee over a female employee because women because get pregant and cost me more money to insure and employ, you would be okay with that?

 

Since it's fairly impossible to make a run at the Presidency without about $1 billion to $2 billion USD, I think it's pretty fair to say Rand Paul is a non-starter. I think the Super PAC's will probably be pushing for a Christie / Jeb Bush ticket or a Christie / Rubio so they aren't pissing their money away. And candidly, they will have a hard time no matter what. You have to assume we will see Clinton / Biden or Clinton / Cuomo on the next ticket. Every democrat, and half the female republican voters are going to line up to pick Hilary Clinton. It would be a landslide if she ran.

 

Yes, just like I would be okay with it if a woman wanted to refuse using her business services for people like Todd Akin. I don't believe the government should force anyone to use their body or property in a way they don't wish to.

 

I appreciate your honesty... but I wasn't saying anything about using their body. I am just saying not hiring you because you are a woman.

 

You're taking Rand's positions in pieces, which means you're losing context. Rand also wants to lower the 39.6% tax as well. So in the end, big corps are not paying less than half of what a small business pays.

As for the rest, you can't have crony capitalism without cronies. What businesses/banks are Rand's cronies?

 

I'm providing specific documented examples of how Rand Paul supports crony capitalism. A person does not have to benefit directly from crony capitalism to support it. I used taxation because disparity in taxation is perhaps the primary form or crony capitalism in the United States. When the tax burden relative to income is not uniform across the board then there are treated favorably while others are being treated unfavorably by the government and that is the definition of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is extablished by favorable treatment of one that imposes "unfavorable' treatment upon another.

I also endorse lowering the earned income tax rates but before that can be done we must first establish fair taxation. Every dollar of income regardless of source, and regardless of the entity receiving the income, must be taxed under the same tax rules. A corporation must have it's income taxed the same as a person. An investor must have their income taxed the same as a worker. Once taxation is fixed then we can address whether the revenue is enough to pay for the authorized expendatures of government as well as providing for the repayment of prior debt. If there is enough government revenue then the tax rates can be reduced. If the tax revenues don't cover the authorized expendatures and provide for repayment of prior borrowing then the rates must be increased.

We can not separate revenue from expendatures which is why the "tea party" proposals fail. We must pay for the authorized expendatures of government over the long term. We can have borrowing but it has to be paid off. We can't ignore prior debt. We have to pay for authorized expendatures regardless of whether we personally agree with what Congress authorizes.

I personally oppose the massive US military budget believing that the US can have the finest and most technologically advanced military of any nation on the planet for 20% of what we currently spend saving roughly $800 billion per year. The fact is that Congress has authorized about $1 trillion in combined military spending and regardless of the fact that I oppose that massive spending I accept that we have to pay for it. We will continue to have a responsibility to pay for it until it is reduced and then we can reduce the revenues required but not before.

Not once in the history of the United States have we ever cut taxes based upon a promise to cut spending where the spending was cut. It has never happened. Reagan cut taxes with the promise of reduced spending that would balance the budget and it didn't happen. Bush cut taxes with the promise that the US could not only have a balanced budget but also pay down the national debt and it didn't happen. Cutting taxes has never resulted in a balanced budget because the spending is never cut.

 

Two points.

Employer provided health insurance is "group" insurance and there isn't a difference between the cost of insurance for men and women under group insurance policies (nor is there a different premium based upon age). The rate is "per employee" regardless of age, gender, pre-existing conditions of the employee, or other criteria. The rate is exclusively based upon the number of employees and no other criteria.

A woman that "might become pregnant" does not impose any more of a financial cost to the enterpise than a "man might become ill" imposes. If the employer provides "sick days" it applies to any medical necessity for the employee to take off time from work regardless of gender or reason.

We do have the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) that addresses employers with more than 50 employees. It provided for an unpaid leave of absence that does not impose a "cost" on the employer and FMLA can be used by both men and women. 38% of the workforce is not covered by the FMLA and, as noted, it doesn't apply to small enterprises of less than 50 employees.

The fact is that hiring a woman does NOT cost an employer more than hiring a man. Those that believe it does are highly misinformed related to the subject. There is no tangible benefit for providing preferrential hiring of men over women in the United States. Those that engage in the practice of not hiring women are exhibiting gender prejudice based upon misinformation and bigoted opinions.

BTW I've worked with women in aerospace manufacturing and engineering capacities and their performance is exemplary and in most cases they out perform men in the same job roles. They are maticulus in their work and highly dedicated to the quality of the work they do. While anecdotal it is based upon over 40 years of my personal experience in manfacturing and engineering. The only problem I've found is that there weren't enough women in aerospace manufacturing and engineering.

 

It is the same thing. A business owner put their money, time, labor, etc into creating a "property" and should be able to use that property as they see fit.

I don't have a right to work at any particular place. I have a right to start a business. I have a right to choose NOT to work for a bigot. I have a right to seek employment. I don't have a right to force someone to hire me because I have a vagina.

- - - Updated - - -

He/she won't answer the crony part although I'm sure a hella lot of research has been put into trying to find at least one. I'm still waiting on the crony myself.

 

But a person has to be giving benefits to his or her cronies. That's where the crony part comes in.

No, special regulations that benefit say Solyndra over another business is an example of crony capitalism.

You're casting a wide net because you ran your mouth off without evidence.

 

That is true. No specific person is entitled to a job with a specific employer but that isn't the problem in America.

People are being denied employment and/or paid lower wages solely because of they color of their skin or their gender throughout the workforce in the United States. They can be equal to or superior to other job applicants or workers but are being discriminated against extensively based solely because of race or gender prejudice. The belief that they can go somewhere else is false because of how widespread the discrimination is and this discrimination is very well documented.

 

Prove this. Prove to me people are being denied employment because of skin color or gender and not their work performance.

I could say I was denied a job because I have a vagina but it doesn't make it true. I could just be denied a job because I am a poor interviewer or don't fit the company culture or she/he didn't like my clothing.

Then show me some proof of this.

 

I don't know why all the talk of "crony capitalism" here. Barack Obama supports and certainly benefits from "crony capitalism" and he doesn't get condemned for it by his supporters. And what's more....he has spoken out against crony capitalilsm before too. So, let's not expect of all others what we don't expect from the president.

 

Apparently Rand Paul is already catering to his "cronies" for a 2016 presidential bid.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/05/nation/la-na-presidential-money-2016-20130605

This was not a "retreat" that invited average working people but instead was a retreat where big money investors benefiting from the huge disparity in taxation that plays "favoritism" for investors over workers that has already been established and that we've already documented that Rand Paul supports this disparity in taxation that is crony capitalism.

Any entity (i.e. person or enterprise) engaged in capitalism that receives favortism by government whether its a corporation like Solyndra or Warren Buffet represents "crony capitalism" in the economy.

 

No, you're showing specific, documented examples where Rand voiced support for lowering corporate tax rates. You haven't even tried to show specific, documented examples where he wants to leave taxes on individuals and small businesses as is. You're being very dishonest right now, which makes me doubt the veracity of your claim.

The progressive tax system, which you have gone to bat for and which Rand opposes, has the mega corporations paying a negative tax, which means they are literally being paid to not pay taxes. Meanwhile, the upper middle class/fringe rich are picking up the tab. How is that fair and equitable taxation?

Why can't we just cut those expenditures? Why do our taxes have to skyrocket to pay for out of control spending? That doesn't help working Americans either.

Now, I've answered plenty of your points. It's time you stopped dodging mine. What businesses/banks does Rand specifically tailor his policies to benefit?