Barry Short writes…
Just thought I should say, as someone who's actually running for office as a Libertarian, that you are absolutely correct about Rand Paul. Way too much of what he's saying (I am tempted to say, "blathering about") is the opposite of what I believe, and not at all representative of what's in the Libertarian platform as I read it. Without belaboring a whole lot of stuff you already know and have covered well, let me just say this: there's a reason Rand Paul is running as a Republican, and not as a Libertarian.
Here's how I describe my stands, and I think it's not too incorrect for the national party stands as well: Libertarians are the most truly conservative party, because we believe government should stay out of things that don't have anything to do with running government. We're also the most truly liberal party, because we believe government should stay out of things that don't have anything to do with running government. (Though I admit I'm a little bit loathe to use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" at all — they've both been reduced to meaningless pejoratives, with only a tiny minority actually knowing what they mean.)
Rand, as you very correctly point out, seems to have missed the second part of that description.
I have a certain respect for Libertarians who don't fudge the principles, applying the philosophy in a uniform manner. I don't think it can work…or will ever be really tried in this country. But I think there's at least an intellectual honesty to defining the role of government and then adhering to that definition, regardless of what it yields in terms of social change. I once heard someone define a true Libertarian as someone who is willing to live in a world where the government cannot stop his neighbors from doing an awful lot of things he doesn't like even though they don't harm him. I don't see that's true of Rand Paul…or his father, for that matter.