Dear M. Screwed,

Perhaps Robert A. Levy should look to another document for inspiration where his tortured constitutional denialism fails. The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence pretty much says it all about freedoms enjoyed by American people. Are they not universal?

Of course, apologists for reprehensible speech will find ways to twist the meaning of that landmark document, too. So it goes in “Libertarian La-La Land.”

Regards!

Don

Apparently, Dr. Paul changed his name to “Rand” out of admiration for Ayn Rand.  She, in turn, took the name “Rand” from her Remington-Rand typewriter. “Ayn” was some sort of Finnish name, pronounced “Ein” (like the German word for “one”) rather than “Anne”.

Rand Paul’s Principled Stumble
by Robert A. Levy
Robert A. Levy is chairman of the Cato Institute.
This article appeared on Politico.com on May 25, 2010
Rand Paul has taken a principled — but politically incorrect — position, for which he’s being pilloried. A look behind the 6-second-sound-bite version of his position might be helpful.
Despite how his comments have played, Paul has said he is glad that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. He accepts the Civil Rights Act as settled U.S. law — not to be revisited by the courts despite possible constitutional infirmities.
But, though the Supreme Court upheld the 1964 act, the law has a disputable constitutional pedigree. The Civil Rights Act addresses the conduct of private individuals, so it is not easily shoehorned into the 14th Amendment, which constrains only government conduct. And the act has nothing to do with reducing state-imposed obstacles to the free flow of interstate trade — so it should not have been legitimized under an original understanding of the commerce clause.

Still, the law was affirmed — and deservedly so — by the court because it helped erase an unconscionable assault on human dignity.

So Paul stands foursquare for civil rights but acknowledges the Civil Rights Act’s possible disconnect from the Constitution. His position is therefore intellectually honest, unlike those who insist that, because the Civil Rights Act is beneficent, it must necessarily be constitutional.

Some activities — for example, torture — offend the Constitution even though they might yield widely acclaimed benefits — such as preventing a terrorist attack.

The remedy in such cases is either to amend the Constitution or to acknowledge the disconnect and recognize that the Constitution must not be a barrier to racial equality.

Paul’s detractors misunderstand the essential nature and purpose of our Constitution. It does not speak to private power; it is not a criminal or civil code that private citizens must obey.

Let us not jump to conclusions just yet.

felicity, May 25 at 2:02 pm:

‘Anarcissie - do you, or anyone here, know Rand’s views….’

Not I.  I would think they would be on numerous web sites, however.  Some of what I’ve heard is pretty contradictory.  For instance, the “purist” (purest?) libertarians believe in lawsuits as an alternative to regulation, so they could hardly disparage anyone from trying to hold BP monetarily responsible for the disaster in the Gulf.  And one of our enfants terribles, Costa, posted a statement by Rand Paul obsequiously swearing fealty to Israel, whereas the purist libertarians are opposed to foreign entanglements, interventionism, and imperialism.  I don’t know how veracious any of the reports are, but it does sound as if Paul’s views are fairly compromised. 

I concede it is pretty difficult to have any ideas of any sort and be a successful politician.  A good haircut, a lapel flag, and an empty head seem to be the ticket to success.  But things could be worse.

Libertarians are wrong and hypocritical about many things. But it is the Democrats, not the Libertarians, who are the war fpor profit party at this time.

Focus.

Attacking Libertarianism is stupid right now. Find what you agree with and USE IT.

William W. Wexler, May 25 at 10:00 am

” Rand Paul will implode the way Libertarians always do.  Libertarian beliefs look good as bullet points but when you have to explain them, they don’t stand the light of scrutiny.”

Precisely Wexler!

Libertarianism philosophy renders exactly what we have been experiencing economically for the past 40 years or so; accumulation of most of the wealth into the hands of the very few. No society can live free with just a handful of people owning most of the wealth.

A corporation is a creature of the state, so a consistent libertarian view would be that corporations do not have any rights and are not persons.  Some libertarians believe that corporations in their present form should not exist at all.  I don’t know what the Pauls’ views on this issue are, however.

As to unions, a consistent libertarian view would oppose any specially restrictive anti-union legislation such as Right-To-Work laws, as these plainly violate the essential rights of association, assembly, expression and contract.  Some libertarians, such as the Cato Institute, have not been very consistent on the issue, either.

Re Robinson: “But the general idea—that it’s wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the Gulf spill—appears to be something that Paul really believes, since he also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.”

Mark Kleiman at Reality-Based Community has an excellent post - “Murder Most Foul” - that addresses libertarians like Rand Paul, Massey Energy and its ruthless dictatorial CEO, Don Blankenship:

“. . . According to good libertarian doctrine, every single one of Blankenship’s actions is fully justified. He’s entitled – indeed, morally required – on behalf of his shareholders to run mines at whatever safety (or hazard) level maximizes profits. Any miner who doesn’t like it is perfectly free to seek employment elsewhere. The Mine Safety and Health Administration is a completely illegitimate interference with freedom of contract. Firing workers who report safety problems is fully covered by the doctrine of “employment at will,” under which a worker can be fired “for good cause, for no cause, or for cause morally wrong.” Just as they are free to quit, their employer is free to fire them. That’s “freedom of contract.” By resisting unionization, Blankenship has kept his workers free from depredations of the evil union bosses, and any attempt to avoid his thuggish threats to throw all the miners out of work reflects contempt for the “secret ballot.”

http://www.samefacts.com/

Correction. This paragraph should have been puntuated as follows:

“‘It’s a real thing,’ [Rand Paul] said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, ‘and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut’…Very little paint is needed.”[These last words are Robinsons not RP’s.]”

Apologies.

I too disagree with Rand Paul about a woman’s right to choose, civil rights laws, the “rights” of corporations, and the value of unions. Libertarians who defend the equation “corporation = person” are either deluded or hypocritical and should be forced to play poker with Bill Gates till they lose all their money as an educational exercise. That’s what the rest of us have to do.

But still, as usual, Robinson ticks me off and quickly returns to his “use liberal indignation to defend the status quo” routine. He writes:

“It’s a real thing,” [Rand Paul] said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, “and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut…Very little paint is needed.”

The loss of national sovereignty to international corporate $$ and secret intelligence agencies (working all sides) is an undeniable fact. Obama’s claim that he can arrest anyone in the world and send them to Bagram without trial is part of this. The claim that we can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran (and then no doubt Venezuela) based on unproven and uninvestigated “terrorist acts” is also part of this.

The “I’m a victim” stance of right wing rubes grates on my nerves, since they themselves are tools of this movement, but certainly not tools as important as Robinson, who rides “Liberal” herd at the WashPO without EVER challenging these central doctrines of our new Brown Fascist in Chief. He is a greater enemy to most brown people and a greater threat to our civil rights and unions than Rand Paul at this time.

The “left” is being very stupid. Letting the talking head libs distract them from USING rather than opposing the biggest populist uprising at the polls (however misguided) in a long while.

Civil liberties. End the wars. Investigate the Intelligence agencies, especially 911 and anthrax, but also all these new highly suspicious terrorist incidents that set the stage for attacking more of Pakistan and then Iran. These are the real issues. Until they are taken up honestly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. “Rand” (he is a Southern Baptist named after a famous anti-Christian) will be easy to take out later because most people don’t want BP and friends to take over the world.

But right now Obama and the WashPo are their bigger friends and supporters. Including you, Mr. Robinson.

Wake up liberals. You are being had.

Re Robinson: “Sarah Palin accused reporters of practicing “gotcha” journalism in seeking to elicit Paul’s views. As we know from the 2008 campaign, Palin’s definition of a “gotcha” interview is one in which actual questions are asked.

Palin was not the only one complaining about what has been described as “gotcha” journalism.  Rand’s daddy was doing so as well, which is kind interesting when you think about it.  Can it be that Ron Paul is not supportive of journalists who exercise their freedom of speech?

Anarcissie - do you, or anyone here, know Rand’s views on stuff like abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, right-to-die, gays in the military… issues?  Today’s Right seems to be committed to ‘legislating’ private behavior so if Rand alligns himself with the Right he would favor legislating private behavior.  Answer?

Mike789, May 25 at 10:30 am:
‘Anarcissie, May 25 at 9:26 am #

Mike789, May 25 at 9:01 am:
’“a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.”

I appreciate this phrase very much….’

“I doubt if Robinson applies it to his own ideas.  He doesn’t appear to in the present article.”

Enlighten me, substantiate your claim. ...’

Robinson appears to have an absolutist belief in the goodness of Civil Rights legislation.  I have not studied Rand Paul’s views in detail, but the usual libertarian view is that it is good to legislate political and legal equality, but bad to try to legislate private behavior.  Where the line between public and private should be drawn is a matter of some dispute, even among libertarians.  (Tedious details on request.)  If this distinction is what Mr. Robinson is describing as “loopy” in the present article, as it seems to be, then he doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of the distinction; in fact, if he were logical about regarding it as crazy, then he would have to believe in the total absence of private life (which was how Hannah Arendt described totalitarianism).  But I doubt if he has thought the issue through, going by what he writes.

Rand is merely expressing basic country-club Republicanism that’s been around for more than a century.  Separate is equal so separate is acceptable.

‘They’ are supposed to live, eat, play, school their children on their side of the tracks.  When they begin to seriously infiltrate ‘our’ side of the tracks we sit-up-take-notice and create Tea Parties and spokes-people (Palin, Rand…) to represent us and put the infiltrators back in their place.  “Back of the bus, boy.”

FF,

I live in NJ too, and two doors down from me is a Jamaican doctor…guess what color.  Nice, upscale suburban neighborhood.  Never any issues.  Nice people.

Yeah, there are parts of NJ that are racist…but those are the kind of people who are racist in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc.

And it’s true: Not many White families move TO Newark or Patterson.

We are NOT that liberal a state—we have one of the most conservative (actually, nihilist) governors. Our two senators are right-wing and MORE right-wing Democrats.  About half of our Congressional delegation is GOP, including the do-nothing sheep in my district.

Actually, the young Dr. Paul is under fire from libertarians; I offer two examples—

Firstly, Justin Raimondo’s “Rand Paul’s Problem, and Ours; He’s not half the man his father is”:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/05/23/rand-pauls-problem-and-ours/

And secondly, Kelley Vlahos’ “Rand Paul Drinks Tea, Turns Into Hawk?”:

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/05/24/rand-paul/

The common thread is that in his effort to act like he’s “his own man” and not simply a clone of his father, the young Dr. Paul has made hawkish statements vis-a-vis Iran—and as I hope everyone knows, doctrinaire libertarians are anti-war unless a country’s very survival is at stake. (That, as I think I’ve said before here at Truthdig, is why I could never be a “Tea Partier”; they’re too pro-war and pro-empire for my tastes—and you can’t be pro-war/pro-empire and favor smaller, weaker central government at the same time. It’s a contradiction bordering on hypocrisy if not outrightly so.)

Well, Fat Freddy, my understanding is that the coal mine where the explosion occurred was NOT a union mine. A union official on the radio said unionized miners would have refused to go into a mine where they knew that much methane gas was waiting to explode.

And you dare to call the UMW a government monopoly? I wish some good union men and women would be commenting on this site. And I wish you had it in you to do some reading on the history of mineworker unionization, and on the history of the mining areas. I find this level of discourse unbelievable.

And who’s living in a La La land? You liberals pass some legislation and think everything is OK. The fact is, I live in NJ, one of the most liberal states in the Union, but yet we are one of the most racially segregated. Mr Steele, even today, would find it difficult to move into my old neighborhood, and many other suburban NJ towns. And BTW, where were all those “liberal” labor unions to protect their members from all of the safety violations in the coal mine? Too busy taking bribes, I guess. Yes, contrary to popular MSM propaganda, Libertarians do believe in the right for workers to organize to pursue common interests, like workplace safety.What we oppose are the monopolistic unions that the government helped create.

Anarcissie, May 25 at 9:26 am #

Mike789, May 25 at 9:01 am:
’“a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.”

I appreciate this phrase very much….’

“I doubt if Robinson applies it to his own ideas.  He doesn’t appear to in the present article.”

Enlighten me, substantiate your claim. How does he contradict his assertion? You may have a point. I haven’t had my second cup of java, so I apologize for my fuzzy minded lack of depth.

Rand Paul will implode the way Libertarians always do.  Libertarian beliefs look good as bullet points but when you have to explain them, they don’t stand the light of scrutiny. It’s hard to separate the doper ramblings from the paranoid schizophrenia, but you know somewhere down there it’s got to be a conspiracy to take away your rights, and you’ve got to take your country back.  Yes, we can live like we did 250 years ago.

The reason why Rand Paul keeps getting asked about his lunch counter racism is because he keeps refusing to acknowledge that he believes it. The rest of the Libertarian talking points are of little news value.  He’s not even a real Libertarian, he’s a Lib running as a GOPER.  In other words, an ideologue without an ideology.

Rand is a little fart in a whirlwind.  He’ll have his 15 minutes.

-Wexler

This is the liberal conservative equivalent of yelling “socialist.”

FTFY

Mike789, May 25 at 9:01 am:
’“a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.”

I appreciate this phrase very much….’

I doubt if Robinson applies it to his own ideas.  He doesn’t appear to in the present article.

Ahhh, Mr Robinson, my favorite liberal jounalist. Actually, Krugman is my favorite - don’t tell anyone.

I’ll admit, Rand Paul is not the perfect Libertarian candidate. I also suppose it’s OK for the media to criticize a candidate for throwing red meat to his constituency.

First, I don’t see how criticizing the CRA of 1964 is all that bad. Was the CRA of 1964 really necessary, or was it just appeasement? We already had the CRA of 1866, the 14th and 15 Amendments.

“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

The Jim Crow laws were obviously a violation of this, so why was more legislation needed? All that was really needed was proper enforcement.

You also misrepresent Dr Paul’s statements on BP, although he was not exactly clear . You state:

that it’s wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the Gulf spill—appears to be something that Paul really believes

Actually, no it’s not what he believes. Dr Paul was referring to an article written by Lew Rockwell:

Why Not Feel Sorry for BP?

There is also a problem with federal limits on liability. The liability for damaging people or property should be 100%. Such a system would match a company’s policies to the actual risk of doing damage. Lower limits would inspire companies to be less concerned about damage to others than they should be, in the same way that a company with a bailout guarantee will be more reckless than in a free market.

Where there may have been negligence involved, it is highly doubtful that there was any malice involved. Personally, I feel that BP was a victim of their own arrogance and complacency. It was Dr Paul’s mistake for not being more specific. But in a world of 10 second sound bites, it is difficult, if not impossible to be specific about anything when it comes to the MSM. And yes, most Libertarians oppose environmentalism for conservationism. There is a difference. please don’t make me explain it to you.

And who’s living in a La La land? You liberals pass some legislation and think everything is OK. The fact is, I live in NJ, one of the most liberal states in the Union, but yet we are one of the most racially segregated. Mr Steele, even today, would find it difficult to move into my old neighborhood, and many other suburban NJ towns. And BTW, where were all those “liberal” labor unions to protect their members from all of the safety violations in the coal mine? Too busy taking bribes, I guess. Yes, contrary to popular MSM propaganda, Libertarians do believe in the right for workers to organize to pursue common interests, like workplace safety.What we oppose are the monopolistic unions that the government helped create.

No one in the political class is happy about Rand Paul. So, here’s the tactic to minimize his impact: immediately start asking him questions about racism. Never mind that he is interested in shrinking our military or restoring habeas corpus.  No - go for the boogie man of some sort of closet racism. Put him on the defensive from the get-go and don’t let up.

This is the liberal equivalent of yelling “socialist.”

While I don’t agree with him on some things, he is one candidate that will not be bought by corporate interests.  At this point in our history, I will take a congress of Rand Pauls over the corporate shitheels, Republican and Democrat, in office any day.

“a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.”

I appreciate this phrase very much. Often when confronted with another viewpoint that “kinda” gets way off on a tangent, I haven’t had the wit to come up with a pithy summary. Thank you Mr Robinson.

Sure he can.

When Dems do it, it’s “flip-flopping” or “palling around with terrorists”.

When GOPers do it, it’s the “Biased Lib-rul Media”.