Tweet
The Rand Paul controversy is dominating the political media, at least temporarily, but hopefully it will lead to a deeper examination of Libertarian philosophy. Here’s an interesting comment on the Paul story I found on a reddit thread from a user named "garyp714" (edited for profanity).
The Libertarian philosophy on limited government has never been played out and remains an ideology and a set of ideas that when they hit the light of day and the masses of people living in the real world hear them, sound like heartless, impractical stunts.
That’s why Dr. Paul here was hedging. He knows that his ideas sound awful when they get trotted out into the real world and people aren’t too keen on discussions of ideology that rip apart the fabric of society the way Libertarian/Conservative ideals do.
All this makes me want to scream at my Libertarian/Conservative brother: NO WE WILL NOT DESTROY THIS SYSTEM SO YOU CAN TEST YOUR IDEOLOGY ON THE MASSES! Just sick of hearing this stuff. And while I’m at it, fill out your freaking Census forms!
Since The Seminal attracts a fair number of Libertarian readers, I’d be interested to hear their responses.
What’s on your mind tonight?
22 Comments
I’m not a libertarian unless you’re willing to consider the idea of a populist libertarian but this much I know and it applies to all political persuasions:
“There are no whole truths; all truths are half- truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.”
Alfred North Whitehead
English mathematician & philosopher (1861 – 1947)
If you want to read a book that lets you take a look at what Libertarian ideas would like implimented in lighter setting, read Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash
tuesday night we were talking about Rand Paul’s break with crappy Republican issues like Afghanistan and the war on drugs.
Thanks to MSNBC, we’re doing progressive vs. libertarian flame wars, over a 1964 which Rand Paul doesn’t even want to take action against. Let me repeat that, HE DOESN’T EVEN WANT TO CHANGE IT. Hell Firedog lake turns into a circular firing squad. WHy?
Sorry, but you can’t have any wild card personalities in the Senate
One Senator can gum up the workings of governance in a way Ron Paul can only dream of in the House. Secret Holds. Remember what Jim Bunning pulled on the Jobs Bill and Merkowski pulled on the attempt to lift the cap on BP? Imagine Rand Paul shutting the Senate down every time he was mad about some Government regulation of some private business?!?
Nope. Can’t allow the US Senate to be a Civics class experiment in Libertarian Theory.
And since you mentioned progressives vs. libertarians – I think it is a very important topic. Both of these groups are looking for allies in the struggle against corporate owned Republicans and Democrats. If we’re going to jump in bed together, we need to know about each other’s, um, diseases.
Of course Rand Paul doesn’t want to repeal The Civil Rigths Act. None of us are worried about that. But the views he expressed about private business and the role of the federal government extend to a lot more areas than just race relations. With oil filling up the Gulf of Mexico, I for one would like to see a federal government that is a lot more involved in regulating the affairs of business. This is a HUGE issue, and Paul’s true feelings about it need to be completely understood before any progressive considers crossing the line and voting for him.
True. Libertarianism is a costume the business community has taken on, as a philosophy that enables the deregulation of industry. The results came home to us as the economy collapsed, but business/libertarians, especially the Chamber, still keep pushing the very principles that have proved disastrous.
I don’t think anyone is asking Democrats to vote for Libertarians. Just refrain from demonizing them. Is that so hard?
I have a serious problem with a fundamental aspect of libertarian philosophy. This isn’t about race relations. It’s a complete opposite way of thinking about the role and purpose of the federal government. I think the libertarian view on this is very dangerous and will lead to corporate abuses that make the Gulf oil spill look minor.
You are so right marinara. The Ron Paul Libertarians are (were) potential allies on several issues and a problem for the hated Republicans. Rand Paul has no desire and even if elected no power to bring back Jim Crow.
meanwhile the worst case financial reform bill passes. I asked FDL what the absolute worst bill they could give us would have… the answer i got, was
1. enshrine too big to fail
2. doesn’t touch graham leech byleigh
3. countless giveaways and loopholes for wall st.
Once again the media underperforms what a junior high school newspaper could do. Focus on the dumbass with the dumb opinion and let the important stories just walk out.
Was ‘leech’ intentional? “byleigh”; it’s Bliley.
I’m not sure what you’re so upset about, Marinara. The FDL front page has done a fairly thorough job of covering the financial reform bill. The Watercooler usually fills one of three purposes: (1) to fill in the gaps with interesting stories that might not be the most pressing news of the day; (2) To present the top news of the day from a different perspective; (3) Just start a fun late night conversation.
Picture yourself sitting at a bar with good friends and good beer shooting the bull, and relax.
Not interested, the man’s an irritant. Palin without the wink.
I’ll comment on libertarian Rand Paul when he advocates for legalization of marijuana, cocaine and prostitution. Until then he remains a Republican.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/20/everybody-loves-rand
Libertarian ideology touts that it is about freedoms, while promoting a rulership by the rich that totally cuts out the less affluent. Instead of meritocracy which it pretends to the movement enables the wealthiest 1% without the constraints of law.
here’s translation for those who are seduced by “libertarian economics”
the libertarian uses incredibly seductive personal principles that most of us agree and transfers those principles as if they are equally important for business as they might be for people
the libertarian economist actually makes believe they don’t think there should be regulatory control over “the market”
however that is not only a deception, it’s a clear lie, in order for a market to even exist there MUST be regualtions, the very concept of ownership is a set of regulations, the concept of “a sanctity of contract” is a set of regulations, the courts enforcing contracts are further regualtions
however, for “libertarians” those regulations, the ones that help them acquire profit are fine and dandy, just get to the regulations that force them into paying the bills they create, those regulations are all of a sudden off limits
the “sanctity of contract” all of a sudden disapears when it comes to the contracts they enter doing business in the contry they complain of these “regulations’
it is nothing but a seduction they use to get us thinking we shouldn’t force them into paying their own bills
Everyone’s missing the point of libertarianism, which goes beyond trying to force everyone to do what I think is right. You wanna know why nothing ever changes in America? It’s because people think politics is about getting their ideas to win, when it’s actually about giving people the maximum control over their lives. After the ADA was passed, people stopped holding doors for people in wheelchairs, people stopped giving up their seats for the elderly in trains, because everyone can just foist responsibility onto the law. This is what libertarianism is about: changing culturally, not legally. It’s the same as believing in the afterlife. If I believe that being a good person gets me a reward, am I really a good person? Or am I just a child? The fundamental reason why libertarians occasionally make “outlandish” comments, and why they have no success politically, is because people don’t understand them, and they don’t understand people. Libertarians make the mistake of assuming that everybody else is as generous, kind, upright, stoic, and intelligent as they are, and not to give them the opportunity is insulting. Perhaps liberals are right that people are stupid and cruel and need to be herded and threatened with external force in order to do the right thing.
I don’t see how anyone could advocate, in 2010, the end of gov’t regulations, or against new, stronger regulations. We’ve seen one spectacular private sector FAILURE after another– which wouldn’t be so bad if innocent people and the environment weren’t taken down with them. As far as I recall, libertarians are FOR prosecuting and fining/punishing negligent parties who trespass or harm other parties. So I’m not sure why Rand Paul is complaining about Obama’s boot.
However, the libertarians ask, is the Gov’t SMART and innovative enough to actually know how to write regulations and put them into place? I think the answer these days is NO. So, why are we paying the Gov’t to do a job it clearly can’t perform? I feel the only answer is to let the progressives and libertarians hash it out. I would welcome Rand Paul into the debate.
yeah i’m angry. It happens again, they divide and conquer, one side is played against the other.
Maybe FDL is better off after a Rand Paul flamewar, maybe not.
Did you hear Rand Paul and that “Democrat Party” crap today? How about him defending Massey Coal and BP? “Accidents happen.” Rand Paul is a much more partisan Republican than his father. Rand Paul was never going to see our side on anything.
(Most) liberals agree with (most) libertarians about two or three things at most: the drug war, civil liberties and executive power, and military policy. On every other issue they’re more or less diametrically apposed.
Libertarians believe that if taxes are cut, government programs are abolished, and business is left unregulated everything will be wonderful. They blame all problems whatsoever on government intervention in the market, and they blame nothing on business. They want as near as possible the absolute freedom of property owners. No liberal agrees with this.
Their faith in the unregulated market is delusional and not based either on historical experience or on reasonable understanding. Furthermore, they don’t usually say it out loud to the general public, but they believe in the survival of the fittest economy not softened by government action and only relieved by whatever voluntary charity happens to show up. And plenty of them don’t believe in voluntary charity either.
I’m a radical libertarian who reads this blog. I blog at Freedom Democrats.
I consider Rand Paul to be a conservative and a politico. Libertarianism mixed with conservatism leads to some putrid hypocrisies because conservatism more or less views the current order as a result of natural(and traditional) processes whereas the (radical) libertarian views much of it the result of monopoly privileges. So-called “libertarian conservatives”(or “constitutional conservatives,” as they seem want to call themselves today) end up selectively picking and choosing from libertarian political theory. For example, Rand takes issue with the government intruding on the private property rights of private businesses except in the cases involving businesses hiring people he doesn’t approve of(“illegal” immigrants), then he is all for massive federal government intervention, even to the point of militarizing the border. Another instance, of course, is that Rand seems fine with sticking his nose into the private contractual affairs between a doctor and woman exercising her liberties vis a vis her reproductive rights.
In terms of a “deeper” look at libertarianism, I’m not sure many here appreciate the historical origins of it, that is was a radical left-wing tradition arising out of liberal institutional failure. You think liberalism(institutionally speaking) is failing today? Well, it’s always failed, I’m sorry to say. There’s never been any golden age of liberty. You think you have criticisms of so-called “laissez faire America,” just go back and read the writings of Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, or Voltarine de Cleyre.
I don’t feel like a writing a novel here, but if you want to read more, you can read this recent post at Freedom Democrats and explore some of the top menu headings(“On libertarianism”).
One thing to point out, however, in discussing the the relationship between the “commerce clause” and enforcement of civil rights, is that if this site is serious about “drug legalization,” then you are going to have address a re-examination of the scope of the commerce clause. This isn’t 1964 anymore, the applicability of the commerce clause has expanded well beyond the 1964 interpretation. The commerce clause underlies the entire federal war on drugs. Indeed, it’s scope now extends to the simple fact the we are all now economic property of the political class. That’s the reality. We can all celebrate the tearing down of “Jim Crow,” but the sad, sad fact is the federal government soon thereafter began erecting the infrastructure of the “New Jim Crow,” the prison industrial complex fueled by the Drug War. You either have to take the position now that minorities are just overwhelmingly predisposed to being criminals or that the Federal government is enforcing a thoroughly racist criminal justice system. As this recent CNN opinion article illustrates, we are all criminals now. It’s just arbitrary enforcement who actually gets imprisoned.
A consistent, radical libertarian–not a phony libertarian like Rand Paul, who has to retain electability in the eyes of his good, Christian Kentucky brethen–would have dismissed the 1964 civil rights debate as irrelevant to today’s context, and instead would have relentlessly turned the discussion toward the actual “Jim Crow” that applies today, arguing contrary to any notions of some benevolent force of government, we are seeing a thoroughly corrupt political class, one that will not be judged kindly by history. He/she would point out that today’s argument is not about whether an african-american can take a piss somewhere when driving down the highway, but whether said african-american amercian, or hispanic americans, etc can drive down the highway without being racially profiled to forcibly turn over their DNA a police State. He/she would engage in debate inquiring whether this attack on libertarianism is a diversion to mask the fact that Obama’s supreme court nominee, as Solicitor General, successfully argued that the mere fact of operating a prison system gives the federal government the power of civil detention. Right before our eyes, we are seeing the ongoing legal basis of a civil detention being established.
I’m sure some progressives who are reading this will want to attack me for being a libertarian. But I am a liberal and libertarian. The institutional failure of liberalism via a via the State is very real. Liberalism is not an emergent property of politics…