About This Blog
Ron Paul (R-TX) announced this week that he is running (again) for the GOP presidential candidacy in 2012. Paul is the original Tea Partier. The Tea Partier of all Tea Partiers. A Tea Party member's libertarian.
Immediately, Paul was interviewed by cable "news" anchors. Anchors anxious to find some new controversial and stupid thing to replace Trump's now-boring racism and self-obsession.
So, Dr. Ron Paul, father to radical Rand Paul (R-KY), was quick to remind viewers that...yes....he is still as nutty as he ever was, just like his son.
"Yeah," he told Matthews when asked if he would have voted against the (1964 Civil Rights) act in Congress. "But I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."
Dr. Ron....in a line reminiscent of his son Rand's earlier claim about civil rights, told Chrissy Matthews why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't necessary.
Paul says that the Jim Crow laws would have ended without the Civil Rights Act anyway, a view held by many libertarians who believe the free markets solve social problems.
Once again, according to Paul, it's the libertarian view of the divine (yet invisible) hand of the free market which should have been relied upon to vanquish discriminatory behavior by white shop and business owners against black Americans.....and not the tyrannical power of a fiendishly evil federal government.
This is one of the very reasons why I cannot take libertarians seriously. Sure, libertarianism, a radical anti-government viewpoint, can make a good discussion topic, especially while kicking back on the way to getting inebriated. But libertarianism is not realistic.....it's simply an ideological dreamscape.
Paul's viewpoint is that business owners should be able to exercise their "right" of discrimination against any class or race or sex of people they please. Refuse blacks access to their places of establishments.....deny Hispanics employment because they're Hispanics, etc. The Pauls believe that to deny businesses this "right" to openly discriminate is to deny them their "freedom."
While the Pauls' claim they abhor racism....and they most likely do....their cure seems ridiculous. Does anyone really think that free market choices would drive racists out of business? Did racists in the south during Jim Crow go out of business because righteous consumers rejected those shopkeepers racism...refusing to patronize all-white only establishments. Of course not.
There is no righteous divine hand in the marketplace. If anything, what's at work in the marketplace is greed and selfishness or greed and fear. Both unsavory in their implications.
But Ron Paul couldn't leave well enough alone, as it were....and so he went to Wolfie Blitzer over on CNN.....and embarrassed himself a bit more....
BLITZER: On the whole issue of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, do you want to see that agency ended?
PAUL: Well, if you want to live in a free society, if you want to pay attention to the constitution, why not? I think it’s bad economics. I think it’s bad morality. And it’s bad constitutional law.
FEMA? Paul asserts that FEMA violates his freedom? Really?
This is the problem with libertarianism. Libertarians do not accept the concept of the "United" States of America. The collective. Instead, libertarians see the U.S. as 308 million individuals on their own.....308 million individuals whose freedom is violated every time a law is written. Taken to it's logical conclusion, we couldn't have any governance at all.....or at best, only the governance libertarians wanted.
Think about what Ron Paul, the captain of the Tea Party, is saying about what America should look like. A nation which openly accepts hateful discrimination of any kind and calls that ugly discrimination "freedom." Even further, a nation which celebrates the fact that it's citizens are free to openly express their hate of others who don't look like them.
A nation which would stand by and allow tens of thousands of U.S. citizens caught up in some calamity to drown or starve or whatthehellever....all because it's "bad economics", "bad morality" for the federal government to step in. A nation of libertarian teanuts thumping their chests and shouting that they aren't truly free if hurricane or tornado victims are being assisted by federal tax dollars.
Libertarians....who look at the Constitution....and conclude without breaking a straight face, that the freedom intended by our Founders was meant to include praise for, and defense of, open practices of hatred and division among it's citizens. Libertarians stare into the Constitution and claim that freedom cannot be truly free if Emergency Management bureaucrats are spending tax monies on saving victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, fires or famines.
That is why I cannot have anything to do with libertarian freedom.
It isn't freedom at all.