The honeymoon lasted all of 24 hours. So he’s against the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He believes Woolworths should be allowed to deny access to African Americans and Condo associations decreee that they be whites only.
Now I know that the usual wingnuts here will no doubt defend Rand Paul’s positions and they will engage in the usual diversionary nonsense to downplay this, but this is a big frickin deal. The teaparty, the GOP in 2010, is about to elect a segregationist to the US Senate. And we though that was all in our past. I wonder will the GOP give this guy any money? Will they fund the campaign of a segregationist? I wonder what Michael Steele thinks about this?
One thing is for sure. You won’t see too many leading light Republicans standing next to this loon for a photo anytime soon.
I am sure you are not the last to call Rand Paul a racist or segregationist, but is simply not true. To understand his comments, you have to understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism believes that the government should not have authority to dictate to private businesses what they can or can’t do, as long as it does not harm others.
A typical libertarian is both against segregation (on moral grounds) and against government imposed integration (defense of liberty). An honest libertarian opposes all forms of racisim, sexism, agism, discrimination, etc. with all their power, but also believes that government intervention is not the solution.
You must make the distinction between someone being for segregation and someone being against mandated integration. They are two entirely different arguments. If you don’t understand the distinction, you don’t understand libertarianism.
That being said, it is a ridiculously naive viewpoint to think that we could have achieved voluntary integration since the 1960’s, as would be the case under ideal libertarianism. As such, you will see Rand Paul backpedaling like crazy on his statements, even if they do express libertarianism in its purity
Do you really believe the crap you just typed? Why is it that those on the left are constantly trying to distort and destroy folks…whether its a potential canditate (Palin or Paul) or a law (AZ). Its sad, really, I am embarrissed for you.
I have some friends in Bowling Green, KY that know him personally, what you are saying is pure bullshit.
The backpedaling has already begun–or, maybe what we’re seeing is Paul’s conversion from Libertarian to Republican. His statement to Wolf Blitzer said a great deal about his ideological purity: *Yes, I would have voted yes *(for the CRA, including the offending Title)…the problem was so big that it required the federal government’s intervention.
Spoken like a true (insert any political party other than Libertarian here).
And to be fair to the OP, he never called Paul a racist. You inferred that. He did call him a segregationist, which would have been a fair enough criticism based solely on the product of his vote (though clearly not his desire or intent), had he cast one against the CRA in 1964. But since Paul has now clarified that he would’ve voted for the CRA of 1964, neither charge sticks.
There is plenty of room to criticize the opinion that private businesses should be permitted to discriminate against minorities and the disabled, though, because it allows discrimination to continue on unhindered. And in many places, that’s exactly what would happen. Most people, I think, support that Title, be they Republican, Democrat, or Other, and probably view it as a moral issue, and within the parameters of the proper role of government to step in and protect those Americans who cannot protect themselves. There’s also plenty of room to criticize a candidate who goes on a damage control tour, touting his support for legislation while simultaneously pleading his philosophical case against them.
I was making the point that Rand Paul was stating the ‘pure’ libertarian position: that in a perfect world, there would be neither segregation nor a CRA. The CRA wouldn’t be necessary because rational people would not patronize segregationist businesses, thus leading ultimately to their demise. That is the idealism that of course would never, ever, ever have come to pass. Hence, the CRA was a practical necessity to achieving integration.
R. Paul probably understands that, but he was too unpolished and tried to explain his idealism as opposed to accepting reality the way it was and is.
Eventually, decades later perhaps, it would’ve come to pass. Failed ideas will always be replaced by better ideas, given enough time. But when we’re talking about the lives of our countrymen, decades, on the heels of decades of decades, is far too long. Again, I think most people support federal involvement in eliminating discrimination in both the public and private sector. Paul, his fuzzy expressed support of the CRA notwithstanding, has made his position clear on the matter. He does not believe the government should have a say in private affairs. He can dance around it and call it a smear campaign all he’d like (and it will work in his favor, no doubt), but he can’t walk away from his true beliefs, particularly when he continues to defend them.
Wonder what his views on immigration are. If they are hard libertarian, that could get in him trouble with pubs too. OTOH, you know the left is scared shitless of a serious small govt push, and someone that represents this idea will be attacked relentlessly.
Paul is Christmas come early for the left; like a Russian matryoschka doll, he melds all the talking points about the Tea Party, Conservatives, and indifference to inequality together in one compact little package.
I’m guessing he wins his Senate race, but further entrenches these memes on the national level. If anything, I think he’ll serve more as an example of why government should reach beyond the strict constructionist’s view of the Constitution and into the reality of 21st century America. He’s doing them a bigger favor running as a Republican than as a Libertarian.
I am SHOCKED that a GOP’er err Tea Party member feels that way about the Civil Rights act…We all know the GOP err the Tea Party is full of Quality individuals that have no intention of turning back the clock 40 years or so…
Seriously the only difference between what Paul said and what a majority of the GOP and the GOP sympathizers on this board, see above comments, is that he isn’t smart enough to have advisors around to keep him from speaking his true thoughts.
Looks like BK and his minions have a lot of work to do to spin this around by November…
Rand Paul is a segregationist (I did not call him a racist) and he believes that racists should be allowed to ply their trade in 2010 America by prohibiting people of color from stores, restaurants, bathrooms etc. If that is not a segregationist what is? That is a stone cold fact and he has said so repeatedly. He also wrote a letter to his local newspaper a few years ago calling for the repeal of the Fair Housing Act. Who knows what else will pop up in the coming months as people take a real close look at this guy and his kooky positions.
I know what Libertarianism is and I know what Rand Paul’s particular brand of Libertarianism believes; he thinks that property rights are more important that human rights. His failed philosophy might sound good in a freshman dorm debate but it does not translate to the real world and if he is elected US Senator he will have to make real world decisions. The real world is full of bad people with fucked up ideas.
I wonder what Mr. Paul thinks of the BP oil spill in the gulf? should the government just let private enterprise do its thing and not get involved? Immigration, is he for open borders? drugs? is he for legalizing all drugs? heroin? cocaine? meth? What about prostitution? where does he stand there? does he believe the government should regulate that economic activity and tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies? what about crimes against the state?
He wasn’t asked any of these questions in the Republican primary, but you can bet your ass he will in the general.
I know what Libertarianism is and I know what Rand Paul’s particular brand of Libertarianism believes; he thinks that property rights are more important that human rights. His failed philosophy might sound good in a freshman dorm debate but it does not translate to the real world and if he is elected US Senator he will have to make real world decisions.
x2, I understand and can argue the Libertarian point of view, but it often fails the “real world” test (civil rights being a major area where it fails)
Rand Paul is not a segregationist, but believes that if you value freedom you must also be willing to allow others to be segregationist if they so choose. A libertarian believes that segregation is morally reprehensible and, as such, would eventually be forced from society voluntarily. It is not property rights over human rights, but holding freedom to be the most sacred of human rights. That includes the freedom to be a racist and an asshole if you so choose.
And as I stated above, I believe this ideal state would never have come to pass (voluntary ending of segregation), and as such the CRA was necessary.
Regarding BP, a libertarian would also hold BP accountable for every cent of damage caused by the oil spill. A private entity is held responsible for all of its actions and cannot do damage to the property of others without being held accountable. (also the reason why libertarians are against the bailouts . . . )
Eventually, decades later perhaps, it would’ve come to pass. Failed ideas will always be replaced by better ideas, given enough time.
Perhaps, but there is no guarantee, and nothing will happen without a struggle. Check out women’s rights in the Middle East, or the status of democracy in a large number of countries. Thre are lots of bad policies which can be sustained indefinitely, and may need to be fixed by government action. Paul’s inability to understand that is a major shortcoming.
x2, I understand and can argue the Libertarian point of view, but it often fails the “real world” test (civil rights being a major area where it fails)
I agree. The prime reason being that Libertarianism assumes rational actors, and doesn’t account for people making irrational decisions (ie, a business turning down a qualified employee for an unqualified employee solely based on his race is most definitely not a rational business decision, but it did and does happen). Libertarians think that if we were all rational enough, we would always hire the more qualified employee.
In a way, the same type of logical flaw that is found in pure communism, which presupposes virtuous behavior.
I don’t care about Rand Paul’s morals and what he finds reprehensible. Congress is full of people who tell you they are god fearing moral family men and we all know better. I care about the votes he will cast. Like I said, this is the real world, not fresman year poli sci.
As for Freedom?
What about freedom to have sex with underage boys? freedom to marry your sister? freedom to ignore a draft? freedom to burn a flag? freedom to prostitute yourself in front of a kindergarden? freedom to drive intoxicated? Freedom to sell drugs?
he thinks that property rights are more important that human rights.
His failed philosophy might sound good in a freshman dorm debate but it does not translate to the real world and if he is elected US Senator he will have to make real world decisions.
Rand is not a segregationist. A segregationist favors segregation; he does not. His philosophy made policy may or may not result in segregation, but to call him a segregationist is akin to calling President Obama anti-American because his policies, though well intended, may not produce the desired results.
Re: property rights vs. human rights, it would be more precise to say he considers property rights to be an inalienable human right. This is fundamental to Libertarianism; you don’t pick and choose which human right supercedes the other. In Libertarian philosophy, there is no conflict between any of the human rights. The conflicts arise only when social engineering puts them in direct conflict.
Which brings me to the third point. We’re stuck with social engineering; as such, I agree that it does not, and can not, translate to the society we live in. We’ll choose social engineering every time, so long as we retain our right to vote for it. Libertarianism in 21st century America is, for all (im)practical purposes, is as practicable as a soverign nation committed to pacifism. For all the same reasons I admire it in theory, I reject it in practice.
What about freedom to have sex with underage boys? freedom to marry your sister? freedom to ignore a draft? freedom to burn a flag? freedom to prostitute yourself in front of a kindergarden? freedom to drive intoxicated? Freedom to sell drugs?
And you say you understand Libertarian philosophy?
