Rand Paul

Hey Denny,
Don't know if you've noticed, but Libertarian-boy cum teabagger Rand Paul has been getting some pretty bad press lately. Seems a lot of people don't actually agree with him that lunch counters should be allowed to refuse to serve negroes, and that people think that mine disasters and oil spills might actually be the fault of the company involved.
Do you think this is a rejection of libertarian principles, or do you think Rand Paul is a poor communicator of said principles? Or do you think, as Sen. Kyl says below, that libertarianism amounts to masturbation?
"Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R, Ariz.) told the newspaper Politico that Mr. Paul's civil rights comments were comparable to "a debate like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you're going to college. But it doesn't have a lot to do with anything.""

barfo

 

I noticed how what he said was twisted for political gain by his opposition.

I happen to support the intent of the legislation (as Paul said). However, I am not sure that the legislation was ultimately required to achieve its results. If you know anything about history, about black history, then you might know about Black Wall Street. If you don't, or for the benefit of others who don't:

Black Wall Street is the name of one of the most affluent black communities in america, long before the modern civil rights movement was formed. The level of success of numerous black people in that community was exceptional - numerous millionaires, some of the best doctors in the nation. Being a millionaire might not seem like a big deal, but this was back in ~1910-1920 when a dollar was worth a lot more.

The gist of the story is that a bunch of white people, the KKK, and government officials (like the local sheriff) burned the neighborhood to the ground during what's conveniently called a "race riot" by some. Though certainly racist, I would call it the decimation of thriving black enterprise, intimidation of the highest order (to keep them in their place), and a real blow to black people seeking to live the american dream.

This is not anecdotal evidence that govt. intervention in the name of "civil rights" is not a requirement. There were black teachers, doctors, mayors, senators, etc., after the civil war. In fact, the evidence repeatedly suggests that the role of govt. is to protect citizens and persons and their property against physical aggression, and that is where govt. continually fails. It wasn't the lack of civil rights legislation that failed in Tulsa, it was the govt. not using whatever police or military force to protect that neighborhood and the people there.

Te party that does not call itself the Party of Lincoln, for 100 years enacted Jim Crow laws and otherwise fostered violence against our brothers. Govt. has never been the solution, it's been the problem.

The failure of govt. to perform its primary duty (to protect and defend) is the sorry truth. While the northeast liberal crowd looks down its nose at people of the South to this day, anyone with a sense of history knows that they opposed the civil war, and they seem oblivious to the fact that terrible racist activity went on in places like California, Chicago, Detroit, and Cincinnati (to name a few). I'm talking about race riots and lynchings and other horrible things that took place all along. Or laws against shining shoes on public street corners, that are clearly targeted at you know who.

Jackie Robinson wasn't the first black MLB player because of govt. fiat. It was his own courage, and less well promoted the courage of a white man named Branch Rickey, that began the integration of the game. Just seeing black men excel at the game for a couple of decades led people to accept and then embrace integration.

All this leads back to Rand and to your misreading of what Jon Kyl said. It is a philosophical question about the proper role of government. I, like Rand, don't believe that govt. should reach out with its too broad powers to legislate behavior. It should protect the the people within our borders and their property, and let the Robinsons and Rickeys sort out the social issues.

 

It doesn't keep thumbs and rats out of sausage, nor does it keep us safe from food borne issues (see the peppers, cabbage, tomatoes, and other stories over the past couple years?), nor does it keep people safe on the roads (seen the traffic fatality stats?)

 

Doesn't seem like a very sound argument. The choices aren't 100% effective or 0% effective. Government regulation can have a positive effect without solving the problem entirely.

The obvious problem with your idealism that the free market fixes all problems by itself is that it has failed so many times to do so. Yeah, yeah, I know. Jackie Robinson. Clearly Jackie Robinson implies that the free market would have, if left to its own devices, improved mine safety, installed airbags in all cars, stopped using DDT, cleaned up the Love Canal, protected endangered species, etc. etc etc.

In other news,

And still more Rand Paul news:

barfo

 

I don't know, Denny. It doesn't seem like twisting his views, more like spotlighting them. He clearly does not believe that government desegregation of lunch counters was the right thing to do.

And that's a view well outside of the mainstream at this point in time, so naturally his opponents are going to highlight it. That's not dirty politics, that's the way politics is supposed to work.

This is why we don't elect Libertarians. They can't seem to get over their desire for philosophical consistency. A (mythical) libertarian politician with common sense would say, "in general I am a strong supporter of private property rights, but in the case of the lunch counters there was an overwhelming public good that was achieved by the civil rights act, and so I support it unconditionally". Real life involves compromises, and until libertarians can accept that, they won't be acceptable as politicians.

barfo

 

From your own article:

So I do see that it is twisting his views. He never ever said he'd want to repeal the civil rights act, though he did say he felt it was too broad. There doesn't appear to be a racist bone in the guy's body. I've made my case for why the act was (and is) too broad already.

You can't make the case that without the Civil Rights Act that lunch counters would still be segregated, because there is no control (can't go back in time and see what would happen without it). However, I've pointed out that integration happened without it, and that it has been govt's failure to protect persons and property that has been the real failure.

I don't think it's dirty politics. I do think it's wrong to spout partisan talking points and to not pay attention to what he actually says and believes. Perfect example is you saying "He clearly does not believe that government desegregation of lunch counters was the right thing to do." While he says, "Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws." I do not at all believe you are accurate.

 

How is that my own article? I didn't write it, and I didn't even quote it, as far as I can see.

I agree that saying he wants to repeal it is twisting his words. There is plenty in his words that is objectionable without saying that he wants to repeal it.

And so has he. And that's the point of view I claim is far outside the mainstream, and perfectly legitimate fodder for shining a spotlight on.

And similarly, you can't make the case that they wouldn't still be segregated. There is no control for your viewpoint either.

And he clearly does not. As you do not. Why are you trying to deny that?

The word public is important here, as you surely know if you've actually listened to him talk on the subject. He draws a distinction between private enterprise (lunch counters) and public. He supports the government desegregation of the latter, but not the former.

Does Rand Paul believe that government desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea, or not? I think you and he both think not.

barfo

 

You quoted Kyl from somewhere. The quote is in a NYT article.

Mainstream? Give me a break. The mainstream doesn't like any part of government much.

I can (and did) make the case that desegregation was happening. I think it would have taken a long time, and it did. With or without the Civil Rights Act. I'll add that Brown v. Board of Education may have been all that was needed (and consistent with what Paul said). After a generation of children growing up in desegregated schools, they'd get the idea that everywhere else should be (voluntarily!) too.

Rand chooses his words carefully. You misinterpret what PUBLIC SPHERE means. Google it.

In case you don't fully get my position.. the freedom riders were courageous people doing the right thing, and without govt. intervention. When they were getting the shit kicked out of them is where govt. should have stepped in.

 

I'm sure it is. Probably lots of other places too.

Yeah... I think you are overgeneralizing. I think if you took a poll on the civil rights act it would be pretty popular. I think if you took a poll on whether restaurant owners should be allowed to exclude blacks, the answer would be overwhelmingly no. Which puts you and Paul out of the mainstream.

Do I now. I notice you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again.

Does Rand Paul believe that government desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea, or not?

barfo

 

If you took a poll on the intended result of the Civil Rights Act, I would hope it's 100% in favor. Paul said so, I say so. I suppose there are some neo-nazi/kkk types who would disagree. So that puts us well within the mainstream.

Since you didn't bother to google PUBLIC SPHERE - The public sphere is an area in social life where people can get together and freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. It is "a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgment." (per WikiPedia). Without a doubt the PUBLIC SPHERE includes lunch counters.

 

You are changing the subject. Let's talk about government desegregation of lunch counters, not the overall *intent* of the civil rights act, which I agree you and he and everyone else agrees with.

Oh, so Rand Paul carefully chooses his words from wikipedia? Interesting.

So, is your answer yes? Rand Paul believes that government desegregation of lunch counters was a good idea? Or is it no?

barfo

 

Fair question. BP has said they'd pay whatever it takes to clean up the mess. I don't see why BP would have purposefully caused the spill, so it must have been an accident.

In fact, let Paul speak for himself:

No, the thing is is that drilling right now and the problem we’re having now is in international waters and I think there needs to be regulation of that and always has been regulation. What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, you know, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault. Instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident that was very tragic and I’ve met a lot of these miners and their families. They’re very brave people to do a dangerous job. But then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.

 

No, it is you changing the subject, and with the intent of twisting Paul's words.

Since you clearly don't know what the Public Sphere is, it seems silly to argue your apples against the factual oranges.

Read this and comprehend it:

It does not mean he thinks the Act was perfect and he has a right to criticize it.

 

If I drink a bottle of whiskey and then pass out at the wheel and run down a bunch of pedestrians with my giant SUV, can I say "accidents happen"? After all, I didn't intend for it to happen, so it must have been an accident.

Is it un-American to criticize me? Or could it be that my failure to take steps to prevent the accident makes me to blame?

barfo

 

Finally, you address the issue. Of course he has a right to criticize it! And I and everyone else have a right to criticize his criticism. His criticism of the Act is what I've been talking about, and is what I claim is far outside the mainstream of thought in this country today.

Government desegregation of lunch counters is the subject here. Rand Paul (and you) don't believe it was a good idea. The rest of the country disagrees.

barfo

 

How absurd. How many rigs does BP run world-wide and how many accidents? Sure looks like they try very had to not have accidents. At this point, you're making things up now.

 

We don't believe it's a good idea for government to interfere in the private sector, period. The Libertarian saying is, "you are free to swing your fist up to the point it hits someone else's nose."

 

I've been driving for several decades now with no accidents. Sure looks like I try very hard not to have accidents.

I didn't say BP was careless. But it is certainly not un-American to suggest that they might have been.

barfo