Bad grammar in the title
Does should be do
No they doesn’t
Rand Paul was not named after Ayn Rand.
There's the first problem: What you have read is not accurate.
Rand Paul's real first name is Randal. Rand is simply a shortened version of that. The statement that he was named for Ayn Rand was long ago debunked.
The sad fact is that Ayn Rand hated anyone who did not agree with her on 100% of the issues 100% of the time, even when she would change her mind. She especially hated Libertarians.
Get your facts straight and get back to us when you do.
The Paul DNA is isolationist and anti-semetic.
I'm not sure Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand. At any rate, unless there's real evidence it's something they'll deny (and something their opponents will bring up anyway). I'm also not sure father and son can be bracketed together as one entity with common thoughts and reactions.
It's not an easy question to answer even if we're only talking about the father: Ron Paul was and is a pretty erratic guy, and somebody who didn't bother much with details. His problem with Reagan, though, wasn't where Reagan stood or what he stood for with respect to liberals or Democrats, but that he didn't think Reagan went far enough.
So Mr. Rothbard, although supposedly a genius, didn’t know that El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua are in CENTRAL America, not SOUTH America?!
You better find as ardent an anti-government, pro free-market candidate then. If you get another Right-winger who thinks government rather than the free market is the solution (ie. another Socialist), then it’s moving the chairs around on the Titanic and we’re sunk sooner than later. All these other peripheral issues that the Left will help the Right fight over won’t matter when the Titanic is at the bottom of the ocean.
1. Economic freedom. Government intervention in the economy is almost always a mistake, period.
2. Traditional mores. By the time he ran for president in 1976 he was pro-life to the core. He was for returning prayer to the schools (something, BTW, we never hear about any more). He loved America because America was worth our love and sacrifice, and wasn't ashamed to say so.
3. Anti-communism. Communism was both a threat to America's continued existence and to the rights and dignity of people all over the world. It had to be defeated.
So what would he make of some of our modern controversies? How would he have reacted to 9/11? Devastating retaliation to be sure, but would he have tried to do all the democracy-building, à la Pres. Bush? I think he did believe that liberty was the aspiration of all people, which experience has taught me is probably not true. But the Cold War was central to his foreign-policy vision, and I don't know what he would've wanted to do with American power in a post-Soviet world.
Gay marriage? Such a thing would have been unimaginable in 1989 when he left office, so I'm not sure it's possible to conclude anything from his writings and speeches. He might have accepted it as a matter of state law on federalist grounds. But he might also have viewed it as a violation of God's law, and therefore unacceptable. Would he have made it a central issue, the way abortion and school prayer were for him? Who knows?
He almost certainly would have been anti-amnesty (which may be a minority view now), because the law matters, and he was burned in 1986. But he wasn't worried about immigration per se, the "invasion," the way some nativists have been in the last two decades. I think he saw legal immigration as a validation of the American idea.
I know in his day he opposed "socialized medicine," and I think he would've thought the ACA a profound threat to the American experiment. He'd probably campaign energetically for full repeal, and replacement with something far more market-oriented. He'd be disappointed, I think, with the increasing get-along-to-go-along attitude and lack of vision of the current GOP. This would have been huge for him.
Other people who remember his public life may have different interpretations, and I'd be glad to hear them.
No matter whether Rand and/or Ron Paul hates Ronald Reagan it is clear to me that both of the Paul’s and Ronald Reagan are not cut from the same conservative cloth. Far from it. Even if one were to try and lump both Paul’s version of Republicanism together they still would not come anywhere close to measuring up to Reagan(s appeal) and his brand of Conservatism, IMO. Reagan had a much broader appeal that the American people admired and appreciated. The Pauls appeal is mainly among liberaltarians and liberal Republicans.
What is the other thing Murray Rothbard is known for again?