Rand Paul, following his nomination as the GOP candidate to be the Senator from Kentucky, made a bit of a splash on the issue of Civil Rights. Rachel Maddow asked him about his position (also see) about whether he would have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically the portion that makes it illegal for businesses open to the public to discriminate on the basis of race.
Paul danced a little bit, but I think he was reasonably forthright as these things go. He is personally opposed to racist behavior. He thinks that legislation to prohibit racism in public institutions is and was appropriate. But, he does not favor legislation that limits a property owner’s right to discriminate on the basis of race.
I don’t think Rand Paul is a racist, but I can see why an ideology that elevates private property rights above other sorts of rights might appeal to those who are. Where minorities don’t have as much private property, a preference for private property rights over other rights can effectively exclude minorities from a good deal of the public sphere or relegate them to second class status. The test, of course, is how dedicated the person is to private property rights in other contexts: Can it prohibit sale of pornography or nude dancing on private property? Prostitution? Marijuana use?
My guess is Rand Paul is dedicated enough to private property rights that he’d allow private property rights to trump the government’s interest in battling social evils – racism, pornography, drugs – pretty much across the spectrum. My guess is that a non-trivial segment of people voting for him wouldn’t necessarily be so even handed.
For my part, watching the oil gushing out in the Gulf, it’s hard not to conclude that private property rights are just one important interest among many to be valued. Clearly the invisible hand isn’t going to clean up that mess. The government is going to have to be involved in a serious way, and, in hindsight, it should have been more involved – even at the expense of some private property rights – prior to the disaster.
Wait, porn is evil? And “drugs?” Which ones, exactly?
[citation needed]
This should be entertaining.
Maybe he isn’t a racist, but he is stupid:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/20/868339/-KY-Sen:-Rand-Paul-is-a-freaking-idiot,-continued?
I’ve often heard it said that Congress is full of too many lawyers. Fair enough. But can we at least staff it with fewer non-lawyers who can read for comprehension?
Thanks to Masson for opening this discussion about Dr. Rand Paul, who, as we say down-south in our neighboring state, kicked the well-funded establishment neo-con Republican butt. Check out Steve Watson’s report at http://www.prisonplanet.com, “Desperate Establishment launch full-blown “racist” attacks on Rand Paul.
As far as dailykos, I am very distrustful of Kos, and will never forget that someone supposedly ‘working’ for dear Governor Dean’s campaign for President turned up the mike so that his scream, meant for his supporters, gave the press permission to ridicule him, to the point that his campaign was ruined, and that millions of funds collected over the internet for Governor, went missing., under Kos’s (and others, of course} watch. Ask Wayne Madsen, who he blames, and for other info re biased vicious reporting at dailykos..
corr: http://www.infowars.com, not prisonplanet. Thanks.
I’m glad Rand Paul was elected as republican candidate for Senate,and will be getting scrutiny on behalf of all of us who think the concept of ‘limited government’ as a road to ‘individual freedom’ is complete bunk( at least it is when conservatives frame it)..Its actually BP’s profit strategy.In this case ideology is license for complete control. I heard one liberal type make the comment yesterday on TV chat that libertarianism has led the way to our economic breakdown and the polluting now in progress of the Gulf.
Every all-inclusive observation doubtless needs nuancing ,but let the discussion begin! We probably don’t need to resegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters to secure private property rights. It’s pure,non-thinking ideology that is the enemy of the ‘common man’,however that concept is defined.
Given Rand Paul’s views, I wonder if his first name is in honor of Ayn?
Still, I find myself agreeing with more things than I disagree with Paul on, and he addresses the biggest issue to me right now, government spending.
He should at least be credited with looking at the total scope of government spending by being opposed to both entitlement programs and the wars. Too many feel that the answer to our money problems is to just focus on one area instead of admitting that both (R) and (D) spend way to much on their pet programs.
Marycatherine, at this point the Souder thread was insufficiently anti-Obama for your tastes, and the Rand Paul story fails to take into account what happened to Howard Dean in 2004. At this rate the casual observer may begin to suspect you like changing the subject, right after accusing everyone who disagrees with you of bias.
Second, if you’d like us to read something, please link directly to it, and not to the website we might find it on if we search long enough. (And, on a personal note, if you could, please find writers who make your point without believing that the person who uses the most adjective wins. [“Desperate Establishment launches full blown panic attacks on handsome, brave, overwhelming grass-roots victor and caring physician Dr. Rand Paul”; I’ve sat through sermons that were shorter than the headline.] )
Now then, substance: pace Mr. Watson, Paul wasn’t the victim of a “gotcha” moment. It’s not just legitimate, nor just obvious, but essential to ask a professed libertarian what becomes of the protections we’ve (often sadly but more wisely) had to enact over the years to defend ourselves from their “perfect” Market. How does your Procrustean philosophy face up to things most people consider good, or right, or sensible? Should cigarettes be sold, even marketed, to schoolchildren? Should we repeal all merchantability laws? If not, then under what principle? If we abnegate a century of Commerce Clause precedent, what prevents the individual states from setting up their own economies or enacting tariffs?
Honestly, those aren’t just questions Paul should have a ready answer for; they’re questions he shouldn’t have adopted his one-size-fits-all philosophy without confronting from the start. He didn’t face them head on; instead, he hemmed and hawed and looked for an exit, which is why he’s still answering the question 48 hours later. Rand Paul’s personal racism is not the issue, and taking cover behind the supposed unfairness of unnamed people supposedly accusing him of it is not a response.
I encourage people to watch the interview. Paul handles an awkward situation quite well, avoiding the sound-bite, eschewing a yes/no answer to what is a complicated question, and laying out a cogent set of ethical and practical concerns.
If he sticks to that– given the times, given Kentucky’s relatively ornery preferences, given that he seems so reasonable– I don’t think this will last long, or more to the point, I don’t think this will hurt him much at all. In fact, I’d say the danger is on the other electoral foot– that the Dems will be tempted to overreach with this and end up looking desperate/silly. Recent precedent supports this view– as Grayson ran into the same overreach in trying to demagogue Paul’s nuanced views on abortion (a far larger issue in a GOP primary than race would be in a general election).
Wow. That is a totally ridiculous statement Kevin.
Rand Paul says TWICE in the clip you provided that he’d have to look at the HUGE Americans with Disabilities Act before he passed judgment on it. Yet you say he is an idiot because he doesn’t know of an exception that may not have applied to the particular instances of concern he stated? What a partisan joke this criticism is.
Hm.. he’s a candidate for federal office — shouldn’t he have looked at these issues before he ran? Especially since a strict libertarian view of things would allow a whole lotta things, I doubt he’s in favor of — including abortion, legal marijuana and more.
And now… he says it’s un-American to punish British Petroleum or the Massey Coal company for the failures in safety? Hm…
The comments about “accidents will happen” would open the door to considering virtually every “happening” to being a blameless “accident”. In my humble opinion one of the best definition of the word “accident” (an over used term) is “a happening which was not clearly predictable”. The concerns with BP and with the mine disaster neither would meet the test of that simple statement no more than a speeding motorist having an “accident” would.
Hoosier1:
Do you understand the story behind this question/issue? As far as I know, Rand Paul has never campaigned against the ADA, but Paul was asked by some random guy what Paul thought of it. Paul answered with the standard libertarian answer of “we don’t need the federal govt. to do this, this can be done at a local level.” That’s a reasonable answer, and there’s just no way Paul, or any candidate, can be expected to say “I haven’t read the full 843 page law” whenever he is asked this type of question. Later a journalist (who I am guessing had heard Paul’s previous answer) followed up on the question a day or two later. Liberals then repeatedly make fun of Paul not knowing about one provision in a huge comprehensive bill.
That is unfair and highly partisan criticism. Considering Paul’s busy schedule, it would be hard to expect him to have read the bill during that time. Heck, we can’t get Attorney General Holder to read a 10 page Arizona bill within a week of announcing it unconstitutional. Holder, who is currently being paid to analyze laws like the Arizona one in his representation of the U.S, isn’t held accountable for his lack of knowledge, yet, Paul, a candidate randomly asked about a law passed 20 years ago, is. How can anyone reasonably rail against Paul without being exponentially more upset with Holder? The only answer I am aware of is partisan bias.
Additionally, by your reasoning, libertarians are responsible for having read, and remembered, every single federal law, just in case they are asked their opinion on whether this law or that law should be repealed.
While about any of us can endorse some libertarian ideas as we contemplate downward laws (that is, federal down upon states, states down upon local, etc….), but becoming overly simplistic to point of endorsing questioning of all civil rights issues, liability issues and other responsibility issues, etc. is just a bit far fetched. The freedom to/right to do whatever a personal or business situation may be done to freely express ourselves is a huge contributing factor to the mitigating factors that contributed to the current economic collapse–and I am basically a free market advocate but without restraint we return to financial baron mentality of the past. Another side to the issue with many of the conservative minded—businesses and individuals should be free to do whatever—but, freedom of a woman to choose abortion is not one of those freedoms. Interesting!
Jack, surely you understand the argument that there might be a baby in the womb and that maybe its freedoms would be protected? Being pro-choice is a consistent Libertarian position, if one is not aware of what science says about when human life begins.
Eric, are you saying that science has determined that “life” does not begin at conception? If so, are you aware of a particular place to read such a determination? I would be very interested in seeing it.
The other way around! ;-)
Let’s turn that pesky race card face down for a moment. The Code of Hammurabi (~ 1790 BC – how’s that for ‘conservative values’) includes a reference to the basic purpose of the law: ‘That the strong might not injure the weak’. My question for Libertarians — do you agree with Hammurabi on this point?
I’ll take your criticisms to heart, Doghouse Riley.
I’ll take your criticisms of my style to heart, Doghouse Riley.
A spokesperson for the Libertarians has issued a statement, that they should not be scapegoated for the BP oil gush, In fact, that Libertarians oppose the government laws capping liability costs. As we speak, there are efforts to even lower the liability, sponsored by people who are both Democrats and Republicans, the arrogant fools.
Marty, a Libertarian would not discriminate in that manner, but would broaden the concept to recognize that the weak can hurt the strong, the strong can (more easily) hurt the weak, and so on. Moreover, they would apply this consistently to political power as well as its fewer applications to “economic power”.
It’s been interesting to be a Libertarian, to see recent media reactions to things such as Rand Paul’s victory (a Republican one, not a Libertarian one, btw), and Krugman’s recent article on BP, pointing to this catastrophe as proof of the failings of libertarianism.
In case anyone has been sleeping, libertarianism has been on the wane in America for the last 80+ years. I find it very interesting and telling that so many critics are in a big-ass hurry to assail an ideology that isn’t running the show AT ALL. What kind of desperation is this?
BP and the oil industry aren’t operating under laissez faire. It is one of the most highly regulated industries one could care to name. So, libertarianism takes the blame? Are you kidding? This is one of the most unrealistic possible explanations that could be invented.
And, as bad as this situation is, it still isn’t the worst man-made environmental disaster ever. That’s Chernobyl, brought to you by the most completely centrally-planned, wholly regulated nation the face of the earth has ever seen.
Unless government regulation is targeted on behalf of consumers and worker benefits and environmental concerns , ‘no government regulation’ and ‘government regulation’ seem undistinguishable..
Communism had no interest whatsoever of repairing existing infrastructure or preserving the environment.In that specific way, communism and capitalism,left to their own mindsets, have overlapping value systems… I remember so well touring through SW Poland, called Silesia, and it could have been modern day West Virginia.It’s weird when such disparate scenes seem in the same experience on being remembered.
Maybe Chernobyl and the BP Gulf oil spill will be remembered as two similar events. Too early to tell…but certainly government had a role in what happened each place.
Galicia, not Silesia
This BP oil gush promises to be the worst environmental disaster for the USA, ever, and let’s just pray that BP in Lake Michigan won’t end up causing us even more heartache and misery. There are reports of neglect and mistakes being made there, near Hammond, that are terribly concerrning.
As far as racism, I agree with the author of CRISIS IN BLACK AND WHITE, that we are a racist country, and that some people are just more prejudiced than are others.
Well, Mike, there’s an old Chinese curse that goes “May you live in interesting times”.
And welcome to the real world. I’ve been gettin’ called a Commie since 1968. Frequently by libertarians, and sometimes by Libertarians.
Now, I’m not sure how one codifies which are the “most highly regulated” industries, but I’d suggest that the track record of regular and monstrous environmental damage, and the (perhaps now realized) potential for generations-long disaster, trumps anyone’s spiritual convictions about laissez-faire. I’ll say it again: I can’t drive to the store without carrying proof that I, or my agents, will cover any damage I cause in an accident.
And it’s now clear that BP was ignoring warnings from its own engineers, overruled Transocean on operating safety, and was the principal beneficiary of the Cheney Oil Summit decision not to require the $ half-million remote-control Blowout Preventer, which probably would have overridden even BP’s ham-fisted push to get the well on line. We’ll never know, because of the metaphysical insistence that all regulation is bad regulation and the profiteering it covers for. Strict enforcement of existing regulation might have prevented the explosion; tougher regulation almost certainly would have. The one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that, to the extent we left it to The Market, we got slimed.
I don’t think membership in the Libertarian party exempts one from the consequences of small-L libertarianism, and I’m not sure how “the last 80 years” subsume the manias for de-regulation, smaller government, and industry-cosy oversight that’ve been the battle cry of one major party for the last thirty-five, and the not-so-crypto desire of the other. I do recall the old story of the southern gentleman, a Yellow-Dog Democrat, whose favored candidate for Governor had proven, once in office, to be both venal and incompetent.
“Well, Matthew, whaddya think of your boy now?” he was asked.
He squinted at the questioner for a minute, and took a spit before he answered: “Anything my dog trees, I’ll eat.”
I’m a registered Republican but usually always split my ticket in the general election and am more of an Independent than either Republican or Democrat. Turnout at my precinct where I voted in last Tuesday’s Kentucky primary was surprisingly high. It may have just been people were voting before going to work, as I was, my colleagues at work all reported low turnouts where they voted. They voted about the same time last Tuesday morning as I did though, so my precinct may have just had more people voting. I don’t like closed primaries, had I been a registered Democrat I would have voted for Daniel Mongiardo. I met Dr. Dan at a post Kentucky Derby party several years ago, he seems to be the real deal. I voted for Trey Greyson in the Republican primary last Tuesday, so I was in the minority on the Republican side in the primary. The national media has descended big time here in Kentucky. The controversy regarding Rand Paul’s statements on the Civil Rights Act seem to have originated with Dr. Paul’s interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal’s editorial board a few weeks before the primary. Apparently his interview with Rachel Maddow this past week didn’t go well. It will be interesting to see how the race between Jack Conway and Rand Paul for the Kentucky Senate seat shakes out in the general election.
Doghouse, you ask the question, “I’m not sure how “the last 80 years” subsume the manias for de-regulation, smaller government, and industry-cosy oversight that’ve been the battle cry of one major party for the last thirty-five, and the not-so-crypto desire of the other” a bit after you condescendingly ‘welcomed me to reality’. Well, so long as we’re talking reality, it’s like this-
Whatever ‘manias’ and rhetorical clatter there may have been over that time period, the result has not generally been de-regulation or smaller government. I can name actual de-regulations (as opposed to the re-regulations erroneously called de-regulation) on one hand, and interestingly, they mostly happened under Carter.
Look for the proof- Have our governments added departments, or eliminated them? Have the numbers of regulators and bureaucrats increased or decreased? Even as adjusted in proportion to the growth of population? As a percentage of GDP?
As for the mysticism of laissez-faire, it cuts both ways. You can’t prove that strict enforcement and/or tougher regulation would have prevented that accident. You can only speculate on it… but it appears to be the Gospel According to Doghouse.
Yes, we got slimed, so make BP pay, and dearly so. That can, and should, be done.
Mike, I didn’t mean that to sound condescending. I meant “welcome to the reality” of public relations, or Press “scrutiny”, in which it does no good to employ nuance or raise distinctions. My apologies. Like I say, I’ve been a Commie all my life, a Traitor for opposing US adventurism and incontinent militarism, and a Backwoods Idiot for questioning Mitch Daniels. Calling Rand Paul a libertarian when he is not, in fact, a Libertarian, doesn’t really seem inaccurate to me, let alone an unprecedented calumny.
I can name actual de-regulations (as opposed to the re-regulations erroneously called de-regulation) on one hand, and interestingly, they mostly happened under Carter.
That’s a distinction without meaning. The airline and trucking industries weren’t un-regulated after Carter. The fact is that very few people believe in a complete Hands off the Wheel and Everything Will Take Care of Itself approach. Which you know from your vote totals (insert winky emoticon thing). All “deregulation” is “re-regulation”.
But what’s been subsumed under that? Reagan turned over meat and food inspection to industry groups, and cut the number of inspectors in half. That’s “re-regulation” with a purpose. He decided your local Savings and Loan needed to freshen up its image with a little touch of Riverboat Gambler. We know the results. We know what happened when two oil men got the reins in 2000 and decided that the poor picked-on oil companies shouldn’t be forced to fork over a half-mil for remote-control BOP valves.
Those actions may not have been pure enough for your tastes, but for most people they demonstrate what happens when you let the fox guard the chickens, even if you’re still restricting his hours. We can, and many have, point to Norway as a paragon of sensible regulation and minimal environmental impact; we cannot state it will always be perfect. But insisting that strict enforcement prove 100% efficaciousness or be consigned to Just Another Theory status sounds like the height of foolhardiness. Because, according to the Gospel of Doghouse, it is.
From all of the evidence currently available, the remote-control BOP wouldn’t have done a thing. Since the robots were unable to close the BOP when they flipped the switch, the remote would have been just as unsuccessful.
It appears, right now, that the BOP was damaged by moving the pipe while the BOP was engaged during a test. This broke part of the rubber seal that would have stopped the leak.
However, to me this just highlights that drilling for oil a mile under water under immense pressure where humans can’t even exist is a Bad Idea.
The only way regulation would have helped IMHO would have been to say, “No, you can’t drill there, it is just too high risk.”.
Thanks, Jason. I was under the impression that the remote BOP was a redundant system.
At any rate, you would have had monitoring independent of the people who were being directly pressured to complete an overdue project. Not that, given what we know of corporate culture, an extra pair of eyes is a guarantee of much of anything.
My own, modest proposal, designed with a nod to compromise, is to simply remove the spurious extension of 14th Amendment protection to corporations, permitting a laissez-faire application of personal responsibility and criminal liability for criminal acts. To my surprise this has generated exactly zero libertarian support and no corporate funding, despite the potential for real deregulation and large-scale tort reform.