
Obama and Rand Paul Face Off Over the Patriot Act - randomname2
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/26/267822/obama-and-rand-paul-face-off-over.html
======
purephase
I can't believe I'm supporting Paul over Obama on anything, let alone this.

Given it's his last term, I'm surprised that Obama is at this so much. It
could be the pivotal cause that sinks the Dems in 2016 and Paul's filibuster
only bolsters his own campaign.

Feel dirty supporting a tea-partier.

~~~
deelowe
Ehh. I see him more as a true libertarian. I know he's come out in support of
the tea party recently, but that's not really his roots (unless you consider
the tea party to be libertarians as well. The definition has changed a bit
over time).

Generally speaking, I think most people would get behind libertarianism if
they could get past the nut job conspiracy theories. Generally speaking,
liberterianism is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, in favor of limited
government, limited intervention in individual's lives, pro small business,
anti crony capitalism, and generally on the right side of most recent issues
that have come up from bail outs to wars (overseas and on drugs).

Of course, you'll hear the nutjob stories saying that libertarians want to
eliminate public schools or privatize fire departments. This is no more
realistic than it is to say democrats want a perfect utopia complete with
killing people off once they reach retirement age.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Libertarian who wants to eliminate public schools and privatize fire
departments (though I'm not necessarily as enthusiastic about the latter)
reporting for duty, sir.

I'm afraid it's you who has the limited Beltway understanding of
libertarianism. Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and he'd probably gawk at most
actual libertarian political theory.

He's a states' rights conservative aligned with Old Right ideals (nowadays
associated with paleoconservatism). These used to be common, but have been
eclipsed by the more warhawking neoconservatives over the past few decades or
so.

 _fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention
in individual 's lives, pro small business_

None of these things are necessary to libertarianism. Hell, even being
socially liberal isn't necessary for some of the more propertarian, extreme
Rothbardian interpretations of anarcho-capitalism and the so-called
paleolibertarians, like Lew Rockwell.

~~~
seanflyon
> fiscally conservative, in favor of limited government, limited intervention
> in individual's lives, pro small business

> None of these things are necessary to libertarianism.

Could you state what you mean by "libertarianism" because the definition I am
used to has "limited intervention in individual's lives" at its heart.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Various libertarian socialist and left-libertarian movements either reject
private property entirely and advocate a common means of production owned by
decentralized worker cooperatives, for gradual revolution through democratic
worker-controlled labor unions, mutual credit banks that reject traditional
conceptions of markets and are instead based on labor theory of value with
shared credit pooling, so on and so forth. These would constitute aggression
under some right-libertarian interpretations.

In certain right-libertarian anarcho-capitalist theories where private
property becomes the ultimate foundation of individual sovereignty that trumps
all other rights, one may end up in a situation where you have little social
mobility from decisions made by adjacent property owners, despite being master
of your own dominion.

~~~
bcheung
I've never heard Libertarianism described that way. This is straight from
their web site lp.org.

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the
omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over
their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so
long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live
in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite
principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals
and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political
parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives
of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and
hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any
individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the
prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right
to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by
government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government
censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose
all government interference with private property, such as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery,
trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we
oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and
contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to
sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be
left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the
resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of
individual rights, is the free market."

"Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form
corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary
association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to
business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete
with private enterprise."

"Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and
employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not
be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We
support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not
to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of
government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an
obligation to bargain."

~~~
davvolun
Keep in mind Nazi was short for National Socialist German Worker's Party -- so
what's in a name?

Does the Democratic party espouse that we should recreate the US government as
a democracy instead of a republic?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Does the Democratic party espouse that we should recreate the US government
> as a democracy instead of a republic?

The US government is _already_ , in theory, both a
(indirect/representative/federal) democracy and a (democratic/federal)
republic. "Republic" and "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive forms of
government, they are largely orthogonal.

------
adam74
I am so disappointed in Obama. I voted for that liar twice.

~~~
cryptoz
If you're disappointed in Obama over the USA PATRIOT Act, that's your own
fault - he was very clear about his opinions on USA PATRIOT from long before
he ran for office, as early as 2003 (or 2006?). Obama has voted in favour of
expanding/extending the USA PATRIOT Act's powers from the earliest possible
time that he had US lawmaking influence.

There are many reasons to be disappointed in Obama perhaps, but he was clear
about this from Day 1: He supports unchecked US domestic spying.

Citation:
[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm](http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm)

~~~
JoshTriplett
Then again, so did his (non-third-party) opponents. Not a lot of choice
available.

~~~
Doji
> non-third-party

You're imprisoned in a cage of your own making.

~~~
JoshTriplett
I frequently vote third-party. I'm not under the illusion that they have any
hope of winning.

~~~
itbeho
Maybe enough of us will someday make a difference.

------
fourply
What a disappointment from someone who ran, in part, on his record as an
educator on Constitutional law.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
Russ Tice, a Bush-era NSA whistleblower, claims Obama's phones were tapped by
the NSA starting in 2004 [1]. If true, questions would be raised. Could they
have some leverage on him? That's just speculation though, and wouldn't give
Obama an excuse for supporting the illegal [2] NSA programs.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-
obama...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/russ-tice-nsa-
obama_n_3473538.html)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-
ns...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa-
idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507)

------
jkestner
Great discussion here, amazingly for politics on the Internet. Thank you all.

I understand the value of using labels to mean something specific, but it's
also clear that it holds libertarianism back. Like Catholics or Yankees fans,
I suspect there are degrees, but the majority are not extreme in their
beliefs.

The two big parties at least have the benefit of established social groups
that make you feel like you're swimming with the tide. Libertarians don't yet
have a central narrative that can withstand the marginalization by the media
and polite society, and specifically, viable libertarians run under the name
of a major party, compromising or muddying that message.

I like the call here to talking about ideas rather than teams. And I like the
point that no one's calling for change overnight. I call myself a (civil)
libertarian, but that's an inclination, not a manifesto. I'm not extreme in
most of those beliefs. Yet third parties get pinned to the most extreme
conclusions of their tenets, while the fringes of R and D are understood to be
fringes. We have to overcome that institutional inertia with an occasional
bout of critical thinking. Take party affiliations off the ballot.

~~~
judk
Libertarians should be fishing to win back the conservative wing of the
republican party.

Libertarian vs Liberal is reasonable debate to have in society and government.

~~~
jkestner
That would be awesome, because it would mean we've moved past social
conservatism.

I am specifically not tying libertarians to conservatism because plenty of us
weight the social side of things heavier, where there's more in common with
liberals.

------
jugad
Anyone else remember the "Big Brother" episode from "Yes Minister"?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXqmmdIuZJA)

If you have not seen, you are in for a treat.

I can't believe that us/america/world would go down this path after we have
been clearly warned about these things so many times.

When will the govt get it once and for all that overarching warrantless
surveillance is illegal and stop trying for it?

------
irishcoffee
This seems very curious. Is there any information out there as to why Obama is
supporting this?

~~~
wwweston
People sometimes think this is about an individual president/politician's
values or policy thinking. That _might_ be the case, but over the last decade
I've started to think that there's a different explanation.

Sometimes I call it the "Giant Robot Theory of The Presidency" \-- that is, I
suspect that occupying the white house is to no small extent a lot like
climbing into the cockpit of a large and complex piece of anime mecha. It
mediates your senses, your reality is "augmented" in a number of ways, you
have information being fed to you from various subsystems. You're empowered,
but you're also somewhat isolated by the cockpit, too, and it's easy to start
to think about reality in terms of what the various feeds and subsystems are
telling you and think about your actions largely in terms of the controls in
front of you. Perhaps at first you focus that way because it's all so new and
awesome and exciting, then later because you just got used to it while barely
noticing how totally you accepted this interface to the world. Over time the
system itself shapes your perceptions and thinking, and you think less like
what you were before you climbed in and more like the system itself.

That's a colorful metaphor for saying that once you're in the leadership of an
organization, you see like the organization does, because you "see" via the
organization, but I think it adds something.

(BTW -- it's also true of everyone to some extent. It's a useful exercise to
think about exactly what kind of mecha you've climbed into and how it's
influencing you.)

I think this tendency may be more pronounced in organizations with strong
mission-oriented and ends-justify-means cultures.. like, say
military/defense/national security orgs, which we intentionally staff with
people we train to set the value of human autonomy and even life (theirs and
others) below various goals and "interests."

~~~
joezydeco
I somewhat subscribe to the same theory, but it's augmented by the idea that
_there is stuff out there we just don 't know about and never will_.

Daniel Ellsberg (the leaker of the Pentagon Papers) described it perfectly
when talking about how he briefed Henry Kissinger upon Kissinger's appointment
as National Security Advisor under Nixon:

 _" First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by
having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second,
almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked
about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for
years without having known of the existence of all this information, which
presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their
decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish
for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials
and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know
about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that
secret from you so well._"

[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-
ellsber...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-
limitations-knowledge)

~~~
wwweston
Thank you for adding this! Reading that statement by Ellsberg is actually one
of the things that crystalized the thinking I described above.

I think he's also giving thoughtful people hints about how they can mitigate
the problem:

"..it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't
have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What
would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the
same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?'
And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and
just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and
with myself.

"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the
point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him
to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you
know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to
assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a
moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no
matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be
much greater than yours."

And this advice is relevant beyond the realm of classified information. Most
people are likely to find themselves in situations where they have what they
regard as privileged information/perspective that in some way they can't share
with others in discussion. Remembering that other people may still have
valuable contributions to make in that discussion (and perhaps even a
perspective that you don't have) can help ensure what you know doesn't keep
you from learning what you don't.

~~~
jugad
Maybe this partly explains why the atomic bomb scientists were completely
against compartmentalization (I know its off topic... but I was reading about
the Manhattan project and this exchange reminded me of that).

------
randomname2
Obama started the bulk collection by executive order.

He could have easily ended it by executive order as well, yet hasn't done so,
and instead blamed Congress for not killing it.

------
chrismcb
Obama swore to uphold the constitution, he did not swear to keep Americans
safer.

------
pekk
Establishment Republicans should have a harder time than they do distancing
themselves from the PATRIOT Act.

~~~
joelrunyon
Really disappointing to see someone complaining about one side "distancing"
themselves from something instead of talking about the issues based on their
merits.

"Team" voting is why politics is broken and we can't have nice things. People
vote & evaluate ideas based on their teams position rather than the ideas
themselves.

On top of that, Paul's first term was in 2009. I don't understand why he can't
establish his own views on this.

~~~
bcheung
Not sure what you mean. Paul's views on the NSA are quite contrarian from the
mainstream Republican party.

~~~
joelrunyon
I know.

The parent comment was implying that "republicans started it" \- so no self-
identifying republican should be allowed to have a different opinion.

That's a terribly naive point of view and strips the conversation of any
nuanced debate if we simply shove candidates in boxes labeled with their
political affiliation.

