Comments on: Rand Paul talks Family, Founders, and Politics with Liberty Maven

By: Rand Paul has “it” but hasn’t won anything yet :: Liberty Maven

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:32:14 +0000

[...] many Liberty Maven readers are aware we endorsed Rand Paul last summer following our interview with him. At the time he was behind in the polls by 11% points in the Kentucky GOP primary. On Sunday the [...]

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:10:28 +0000

Congress has been gunning for us for over a decade. It's easy to just say, "why don't you just tell Congress you want them to leave you alone?", but you ought to check out the history of Congressional votes on just that. I put it together, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/152/fight-poker... . I was disheartened that Dr. Paul didn't preface his remarks with something like "I support the right to play poker on the Internet." He also didn't speak out against Gov. Beshear's efforts to seize 141 offshore poker and gaming Internet domains. I've sent him two letters on this issue (as the PPA KY State Director), and both have been disregarded.

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:56:49 +0000

My letter to Dr. Rand Paul:

Dear Dr. Paul,

As a Kentuckian, a liberty lover, and a proud supporter of Rep. Ron Paul, I am writing regarding your August 19th interview with Liberty Maven (http://libertymaven.com/2009/08/19/rand-paul-talk… Specifically, I am writing to ask you to reconsider your statement of opposition to legislation that licenses and regulates online poker pending in the Congress. After all, regulation is preferable – and more libertarian – than potential prohibition, which is why Rep. Ron Paul is cosponsoring it.

While I would personally love for the federal government and the Commonwealth to leave us alone and let us play, the fact is that Congress has consistently opposed this. The House has continually voted against unregulated, untaxed online poker and gaming by wide margins. This most recently happened in 2006, when we lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. The Department of Justice has even started targeting our funds. At the state level, the Commonwealth is attempting to seize the domain names of 140 online poker and gaming sites.

It seems there is a less than 1% chance for federal and state recognition of unregulated, untaxed online poker, but perhaps a 50% chance of getting licensed and regulated online poker done. I realize some would expect Kentucky's poker players simply to give up on online poker, but I do not believe that would do anything to further the cause of liberty. In fact, a successful prohibition would be seen as a victory of statism over liberty, and would do nothing to preserve Internet freedom.

What's important to me is your support for my rights. Please respond to this letter and let me know if you will support my freedoms. I will be watching your actions on this issue closely. I hope that I, along with my over one million fellow Poker Players Alliance — including over 13,000 in Kentucky — can count on your support.

Thank you for your consideration.

In liberty,

Rich Muny
PPA KY State Director & Board Member
http://poker.townhall.com

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:37:42 +0000

Do you think we should protest liquor stores and casinos, demanding that they be shut down unless they are made exempt from taxation and regulation?

By: LibertarianMike

LibertarianMike — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:23:59 +0000

That much is clear. It's a shame so many who describe themselves as libertarians are willing to hand away our freedoms in order to "play the game". I think that's a big part of why we are where we are today.

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:20:08 +0000

I'm going to stand with Ron Paul on this one.

By: LibertarianMike

LibertarianMike — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:12:25 +0000

It's really quite simple. Supporting (and campaigning for) regulation of any kind is to be against liberty. There is no liberty in regulation. You are willing to sign away my right to play unregulated in order to avoid outright prohibition. I am not.

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:05:54 +0000

Picture of Dr. Paul and me: http://poker.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/15/the_poke...

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 03:04:33 +0000

No. "Pragmatic" means being in the battle fighting for the most freedom to be obtained. Standing on principle for something unobtainable is easy. Just give a speech, decisively lose the vote, and then have a beer with sympathizers, all patting one another's backs for standing on principle. Anyone can do that. Too bad it does nothing for liberty.

Getting in the fight and actually fighting for all the maximum possible freedom possible is hard. One must actually move legislation and get supporters together. That's why Ron Paul supports this legislation. Distasteful as it is, some taxes and regulation (comparable to what B&M cardrooms across America pay today — and I've seen no Libertarians trying to shut them down) is more free than prohibition.

By: LibertarianMike

LibertarianMike — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:51:22 +0000

Pragmatic means voting AGAINST liberty to gain liberty?

If you play with fire, you will get burned.

By: TheEngineer

TheEngineer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 02:08:59 +0000

I don't like federal regulation or taxation of the Internet either, but the House voted on that in 2006 with UIGEA (it was HR 4411, and it was freestanding). We lost 317-93. We have to win our liberties back the same way we lost them — one right at a time. That's why Ron Paul is cosponsoring this legislation. Unfortunately, I think Rand would rather lose 99-1 and pat himself on the back for "championing" liberty, all while losing more rights in the process.

Ron Paul is very pragmatic in supporting these bills. I hope Rand will come on board.