Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liberated from Libertarianism: Rand Paul Runs and Hides from... Rand Paul
Maybe we can finally have a serious discussion in this country about the lunacies of libertarianism.
I doubt it. This is, after all, America. I doubt we'd know an intelligent political discourse if it whacked us upside the haid.
But now we have Rand Paul, son of Ron, marching toward the United States Senate, with a mission to "take back our government". Oh boy.
I might be able to get a little bit excited about that if it really was his goal. The truth is that the American government exists almost entirely to serve the interests of the American plutocracy. If libertarians want to break that evil connection, well, then, definitely give me a shout. I'll be glad to pitch in.
But, of course, you pretty much never hear them talk about that part as they rant about the evils of government.
What do libertarians actually want, Herr Doktor? It's not entirely clear to me that they know themselves. They're pretty good with the shibboleths, but always seem to have trouble beyond that. That's because it is precisely on the other side of the sappy slogans where the contradictions of libertarianism come glaringly into focus. This is the place where naive but kindly people would say "Wot, I signed up for that?", and that's exactly why libertarians don't want to go there.
Such avoidance of reality is not only rarely a problem in American political discourse, it's nearly a national religion. In this sense, the discussion Rand Paul had with Rachel Maddow the other night was doubly instructive. First, because Paul - the national savior on horseback du jour - was reduced to repeated instances of the most basic, and base, political maneuvering in order to come to grips with the implications of his own ideology.
And, second, because Maddow gave us a partial reminder of what good journalism would actually look like in America. She didn't actually get quite all the way to where she should have gone, but her polite, thoughtful and semi-relentless questioning of her guest was as foreign to what passes for journalism in this country today as would be six-headed fourteen-dimensional gaseous creatures from a distant galaxy. Maddow is fast becoming a national treasure, which says a lot about her, but, regrettably, a lot more about her colleagues in the ‘news' business.
There are several key explanations for the rise of the insane right over the last three decades, but surely one of them has been the compliance of the mainstream media. Politicians have been able to make the most absurdly ridiculous and hypocritical statements without fear of being called on them. And if they ever were, they need only repeat the same line in some slightly different variation, and that's the end of the affair - media lapdogs are well trained to cease and desist. One of Maddow's great virtues - which ought to be a sine qua non for anyone calling themselves a journalist - is her doggedness.
To see what I mean, check out this paraphrased approximation (not too far from verbatim, actually) of her conversation with Rand Paul the other night:
MADDOW: Congratulations on your big victory last night. Do you believe that private business people should be able to not serve black people or gays or any other minority group?
PAUL: I don't believe in racism. I don't think there should be any governmental or institutional racism. Now I'm going to go into a long diversionary soliloquy about William Lloyd Garrison, an early nineteenth century abolitionist, and also about when ‘desegregation' [actually anti-discrimination] legislation was passed into law in Boston...
MADDOW: Yes, okay, that was pretty weird. But what about private businesses who might want to not serve blacks or gays? Should they have the legal right to do so?
PAUL: We had incredible problems with racism in the 1950s concerning voting, schools and public housing. This is what civil rights addressed and what I largely agree with.
MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I don't want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.
PAUL: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. What's important here is to not get into any sort of "gotcha" on the question of race, but to ask the question, "What about freedom of speech?" Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?
MADDOW: The Civil Rights Act was created to take away the right of individual business owners to discriminate, taking away their right to make that decision. Which side of that debate are you on?
PAUL: In the totality of it, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights, which is mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. I'm opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation.
MADDOW: The reason that this is something I'm not letting go of this is because it effects real people's lives. This question involves the matter of private discrimination in public accommodations. Should that be allowed?
PAUL: The debate involves a lot of court cases with regard to the commerce clause. Many states are now saying that they have a right to force restaurant owners to allow people to enter with guns even if the owners don't want them to. So you see how this issue can cut both ways, against liberals too.
MADDOW: What if the owner of a restaurant or a swimming pool or a bowling alley wanted to segregate their facility? Should they be allowed to do so under your world view?
PAUL: We did some very important things in the 1960s that I'm all in favor of. That was desegregating schools, public transportation, water fountains.
MADDOW: How about lunch counters?
PAUL: Well, if you do that, then can the owner of the restaurant keep out guns? Does the owner of a restaurant own his restaurant or does the government own his restaurant?
MADDOW: Should Woolworths lunch counters have been left to be segregated? Sir, just yes or no?
PAUL: I don't believe in any discrimination. If you believe in regulating private ownership, you have to decide on whether you also want to force guns in restaurants when the owner doesn't want them. This is a red herring being used by my political opponents. It's an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. Every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society, and to imply otherwise is just dishonest.
MADDOW: I couldn't disagree with you more on this issue, but I thank you for coming on the show and having this civilized discussion about it...
So, by my count, Maddow asks Paul the core question here no fewer than eight times in a row. This is precisely what she should have been doing, and in doing so she provides a huge service to American society. If I were to fault her anywhere, it would be only for not identifying Paul's diversionary tactics for what they were, calling them out, and thereby pushing them off the table. I would have liked to have seen her say, "With respect, sir, we're not talking about that. Or that, or that, or that. We're talking about this."
And she would have needed to do that several times over, because Paul's game here is to shift the discussion to domains where he is more comfortable, and where the problems with his ideology don't show up so readily. Maddow says let's talk about discrimination in privately-held public accommodations, and he says let's talk about my lack of prejudice. She tries again and he wants to discuss governmental discrimination. She repeats the question and he says let's talk about nineteenth century history. She asks once more and he starts talking about censorship and the First Amendment. She tries yet again and he changes the topic to guns, which involves legislating behavior, rather than race, which concerns who you are. She asks still another time and he cries foul, claiming that this is some obscure red herring being used by his opponents for purposes of political assassination.
All of these are diversionary lies, meant to avoid the unpleasant realities of what libertarianism would actually look like in action. But the last lie is the most egregious. The entire reason for Rand Paul's existence right now - which is also almost literally true, given that he has the unfortunate burden of being named for Ayn Rand, a twisted soul if ever there was - is his premise of reclaiming American government in the name of liberty for the American people. That's who he is. That's what he represents himself to be. That's his political shtick, his raison d'être. What the Maddow interview reveals, however, is that he's really just another politician trying to win office, not a crusader at all. And what it also reveals is just how bankrupt are those libertarian notions if you look at them at all closely.
The ideology has some nice bumper-sticker like appeal, especially for the more simplistic among us. I mean, who, after all, could be against more freedom? And, indeed, when it comes to social issues, the libertarians have it exactly right. The government shouldn't be in the business of controlling women's bodies, or telling people what substances they can imbibe, or who they can sleep with or marry, or whether they can end their own lives should they choose to. But you don't need to be a libertarian to get to those places. These are also progressive ideas as well.
Where libertarianism breaks down is in assuming that we can all just do what we want and it will work out great. And in assuming that all private actors are essentially well intentioned. Neither of these is true, and a libertarian society would leave each of us at the mercy of these twin fallacies. And that's an ugly place to be, let me tell you.
Suppose you bought a house and had a fat mortgage outstanding on it. Now the guy who owns the plot next door decides to build an abattoir on his land. You can't live in your house anymore because of the nauseating, permeating, stink. You also can't sell it, because no one else wants to live there either. And you're still stuck paying the mortgage, probably plunging you into bankruptcy since you're now also paying rent to live somewhere else. Why did all this happen? Because you voted for that libertarian city council, and they threw out all the zoning laws on the books, preferring maximum freedom for use of private property instead. Aren't you thrilled about how that worked out?
So you pack all your belongings in your car and decide to drive away. But you turn around after going just a couple of miles, because everybody drives on any side of the road they want to, whenever they want to, and it's scary dangerous out there. Why? Because the libertarian state government you elected - true to its principles - eliminated all such driving laws as the restrictions on personal freedom they truly are.
So maybe you'll fly instead, eh? Oops. Sorry. That's just as frightening. The new libertarian federal government eliminated the FAA and all its restrictions on private carriers as an invasion of their corporate liberties. No red tape here anymore! No onerous regulations! Now each carrier can hire whomever it wants, at whatever salary, to do whatever amount of safety inspection it deems appropriate. Or none at all. No reason to worry, though. I'm sure a corporation would never cut corners in order to maximize profits, right?
Well, actually, never mind - the flying off to a better place idea is moot anyhow. You see, there's no airport in your town. No private actors had either the resources or the motivation to build one. And since government is evil, they never did the job either. Which is also why you're about to lose you job, as well. With no ports, trains, highways, internet or other mass infrastructure, the US is about to become an economic actor more or less on the scale of Togo. Congratulations on that bright move, my libertarian friend! How does the freedom of chronic unemployment taste? Yummy, eh?
But, really, what do you care, anyhow? Your water is polluted because anyone can dump anything into it they want. Ditto with your filthy air. And global warming is about to take out all the living things on the planet, anyhow. We will be quite free to die, thanks to libertarianism.
Well, all is not lost. At least you can walk down to your local dining establishment and have a nice meal without having to fear the presence of darkies or queers in the same room with you. That pretty much makes it all worth it, no?
We could go on and on from here, but why bother? The point is made. The problem with libertarianism is that it is a child's candy store fantasy. Lots of sugar, no nutritional value. It's the Mel Gibson ("Freeeee-dom!!") of political ideologies. The ugly truth is that we hominids are social animals, not atomistic asteroids, each flying through space in our own little orbit. At the end of the day, the simultaneous great delight and awful curse of our humanness is, ultimately, each other.
That is not to say that individual liberty is not important. It is, and I no more favor libertarianism's opposite number, totalitarianism, than I do the lunacy of Ayn Rand, who spent her life (vastly over-)reacting to the Stalinism of her youth. I don't want to live in either of those worlds. It's just that it's naive and juvenile to believe that what is required here is anything other than some sort of difficult balance between the needs of the individual and those of society. That's the only solution that works.
One would think we might have learned this lesson of late. We've just come through an era of wholesale foolish deregulation in the name of setting free Americans and their productive capacities. The whole of our ethos of political economy these last three decades could easily be boiled down to a single bumper-sticker: "Government Bad, Industry Good". So now we might wanna ask ourselves, as Sarah Palin would put it (assuming she had a brain larger than a centipede's), "How's that whole deregulatey depressiony thing working out for you?"
Sorry, Mr. Paul. Just when we've seen precisely what happens when greedy individuals with all the morality of mafia hit men are allowed to do whatever they want by a government that is completely coopted by them on a good day, and utterly AWOL the rest of the time, you come talking to me about more ‘freedom' from government intrusion?!?! Are you joking?
Government, as imperfect and downright lethal as it can be when in the hands of those who use it for the wrong purposes, is the instrument and expression of the public will. It is the tool through which society conveys its values and seeks to achieve our mutual goals. And it is meant to be triumphant over private actors because societal needs (which, by the way, can, should and often do include government protecting individual liberties - see, for example, "Rights, Bill of") are broadly more important than those of the individual.
It would be a mark of our (return to) political maturity if we could acknowledge that.
If that's too much to ask, though, I wonder if my libertarian friends would at least be willing to take ownership of the real implications of their own ideology.
I mean, if you guys are just going to practice deceit and hypocrisy, why bother taking over the Republican Party?
Those guys are already experts.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
125 Comments so far
Show AllI appreciate this line of argument, but it relies on a roll of the dice with this guy's views on the wars, ignoring his firm ideology that would be resolutely opposed to a key progressive demand - limiting corporate power.
Ideology really does matter. The wars proceed to a large degree to feed the military industrial complex at home and provide access to oil for industry at home and abroad. It's all about corporate power.
Green is correct here, although his Democrats are equally corrupt. Rand would never support limiting the behavior of corporations in any way, even with something he personally agreed with, like civil rights. In Rand's view, civil rights laws only apply to the federal government. It would be the same with pollution laws, the ability to create toxic financial instruments, etc.
You likely give up too much on a small promise by seeking alliances with corporate libertarians like Rand. The disturbing thing here is that third parties other than the Libertarian Party aren't making headway. The libertarians are pretty close to the Republicans in my book.
-TIA
I think Rand Paul is sincere in his opposition to the US wars in the middle east. I don't think a "roll of the dice" is a fair or knowledgable reprsentation of those views. I think he will prove less treachorous in this regard then say, Harry Reid and his gang of war enablers.
Of course the wars are systemic in nature, and also bi-partisan. That's the primary reason that Paul's anti-war views represent a challenge to the murderous status quo.
I view Paul's victory as the most important anti-war development in years to come out of a deep red state like Kentucky.
"None of the latter will ever come to pass."
Sure. Similarly, the wars will go on, the sanctions will be applied, the aid will continue.
I don't agree. I think these wars can be stopped or scaled very far back. Most importantly, I think war with Iran can be prevented by the opposition of other nations, imperial overstretch made worse by economic decline, and domestic opposition.
Yes, not likely and the whole Rand campaign may just be a tempest in a teapot :) but I like to think that even red state Republicans are awakening, in their way, to the horror, injustice and futility of the Obama/Bush invasions.
For all his faults, Paul's brand of right wing populism at least has some redeeming qualities and is preferable to the Rush/Hannity/Beck/... version.
At this point in time, he is also perhaps a better choice than his opponent Conway, who appears to be a liberal interventionist who will support O'Bombers plans for more war.
I agree that the wars will be scaled back. For a simple basic reason: MONEY.
It isn't necessarily that other nations would oppose it, it is that they just don't have the money. For example, if the UK government were join the US in an invasion of Iran, how do you think the costs will go down with the British populace, when the UK gov is proposing 6 billion pounds in public spending cuts?
Look, don't get me wrong, I do have some sympathy for the libertarianism of the Pauls, even if their libertarianism is of the right wing variety, since I tend to lean (left wing) libertarian; and yes, definitely preferable to the right wing authoritarianism of the Becks et al.
Philip Klein, in a post on the American Spectator website dated 4/22/10, cites a Rand Paul position paper on Israel and Iran. Here are some excerpts:
“Finally, Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel. Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most elite military forces in the world. I would never vote to prevent Israel from taking any military action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian threat.”
“Just as the United States would not follow the will of another country in the face of our national security, we shall not limit the options of Israel in this area.”
“Finally, I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.”
“We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling.”
Randy sounds like just another expedient pol trying to tap into popular rage against Beltway politicians. He makes iconoclastic, anti-establishment, noises while reassuring Zionists that he will use our government to serve their racist supremacist interests. He doesn't have to reassure U.S. oligarchs that he will serve their interests, since libertarianism in practice is just laissez-faire capitalism with lipstick on it.
Prior to reading your post, I would have easily agreed with dreamjoehill. Dreamjoehill's views seemed commonsense. Having read your post, and seeing that Rand has spouted Hillary Clinton type lies that serve to manufacture consent for war, Rand has gone in my eyes from being just ordinary, to TOTAL SHIT!
Those are not the words of an honest man. Those are the words of someone who is lying to curry favor with AIPAC power brokers.
Anyone who has watched events with an open mind knows that it is Israel who threatens Iran, and not the other way round. What is claimed to be an "existential threat to Israel" is, like the WMD, a non existent threat, deliberately hyped up to manufacture consent for war. The threat to Iran, on the other hand is quite serious - they are next in line to be invaded, slaughtered, and occupied, and lies like this from Rand and Hillary are what pave the way for this.
This article points out the dangers of ANY narrow, fundamentalist ideology, be it Libertarianism, or religion, or whatnot.
But, as with all ideologies, there's the good stuff and the bad.
For example, if I choose to let people smoke in my bar, it should be my right to do so. If I go bankrupt because I can't survive on smokers alone, oh well. If people don't like going to bars where people smoke, they have the right to not go.
That's not racism. Some businesses have a sign: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. That's not racism either.
'Normal' Libertarians understand ya can't play an NFL game without rules and referees. But they question why the NFL ('our' government that we know is actually owned by Big Bankster and their Big Corporate Partners,) thinks it has the 'right' to dictate players' behavior OFF the field - that should be up to the individual team owners (States.)
Ron Paul has made this clear for decades: less regulations for businesses, but SEVERE SWIFTLY ENFORCED penalties for those who violate said regulations, cause nothing sends a message like hard jail time. What we have now is just the opposite: wrist-slaps at best for history's most notorious economic terrorists, environmental destroyers, and illegal war-monger profiteers.
Our future is this: the combination of the best parts of the Progressives, the Conservatives, the Greens, the Socialists, and the Libertarians...
"That's not racism. Some businesses have a sign: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. That's not racism either. "
And if a business has a sign: no blacks. no browns. no yellows.
Is that racism?
"Ron Paul has made this clear for decades: less regulations for businesses, but SEVERE SWIFTLY ENFORCED penalties for those who violate said regulations, cause nothing sends a message like hard jail time. What we have now is just the opposite: wrist-slaps at best for history's most notorious economic terrorists, environmental destroyers, and illegal war-monger profiteers."
What exists no is already little regulation. Yet, you want even less.
I find it interesting that Libertarians feel that the Courts and tort law are ample ammunition to check the excesses of Corporations and the Private Individuals in a "Small Government unregulated Free economy".
>>Ron Paul has made this clear for decades: less regulations for businesses, but SEVERE SWIFTLY ENFORCED penalties for those who violate said regulations, cause nothing sends a message like hard jail time
In China there the death penalty for dealing in drugs. Business execs have been SHOT for corruption. This is handled SWIFTLY.
Yet this does not dissuade them. Corruption is not ended. People are still willing to sell drugs. There are still currupt buiness leaders and Politicians. The rewards are simply too great and as corruption becomes more common the chances of getting "caught" Plummet.
The Ron Paul world is a fantasy lu lu land. Who will enforce the punishment? How will it be tried? What if the enforcers are paid by the violaters NOT to do their duty? How does a person with 5000 in assets fairly battle a person with 5 billion in assets if he thinks the latter has cheated him?
It reminds me of that old game show, "Concentration". When only a few squares were revealed, it was hard to tell there even was a message there. As more became visible, it was possible to recognize a coded word here and there, but it was still difficult to tease out any meaning. It wasn't until most of the squares had been uncovered that the message was revealed.
By cleverly selecting which bits to reveal, Paul and his libertarian supporters presented snippets of code that seemed easy to interpret: anti-war (sane foreign policy), anti-neocon (anti-imperialism), etc. Then we turn over some more squares, "international banker" obsession, black=criminal, anti-public education, anti-separation of church and state, etc, that suggested a more sinister message. A detailed overview leaves no square unturned, revealing a character of the Bircher/Patriot mold who consistently panders to his loyal base, including it's more racist fringes. Turns out this "straight talker" uses deliberately deceptive language to send one message to his base and another to the rest of us. This defender of the Constitution has some radical alterations in store for that "hallowed" document. This lover of liberty counts overt fascists among his most dedicated fans.
It's not that I wouldn't consider supporting a message candidate, I'm just not willing to provide even temporary, tactical support to one whose message make me want to vomit.
I do really find this extraordinarily disturbing that Rand Paul has become some sort of eccentric spokesman for "American Ideals" and I wish I was surprised. Then again maybe he actually is and that's even more disturbing.
I love your analogy. Most politicians do reveal themselves piece by piece according to the audience and according to the intention of the moment, always making sure that what they have revealed is only part of the picture and can be interpreted in any number of ways. If a corrupt or elite-serving politician were to reveal the whole message, it would be political suicide.
Of course some politicians in the modern era see no reason to be so careful as they contradict themselves constantly and depend on a friendly corporate and right-wing media to cover for them.
Maddow is doing her job for the powers that be.
My take on the Rand Paul phenom
The Powers That Be....we know who they really are..
power depends on the Centrists, both Dem and Repugs
Obama is way down with his progressive base.
Bring out the ole lesser than evil doctrine, keeping those
mindless Obama progressives voting Democrat and Paul lovers
will always vote Repug.
So it is the beginning of the Lesser Than Evil Doctrine time.
That is Maddow's job.... keep American politics Centrist
That is Wall Streets bread and butter. Screw Maddow.
Rand Paul may not be the best Libertarian minded pol like his father who I voted for in the 2008 Republican primaries but if I had to choose between Rand and the typical soggy lame brained DLC hack with no third party options or even a write-in, I would have to choose Rand. Thankfully I live in MO and I can vote for Midge Potts, Green Party in MO without feeling stuck between Carnahan, related to former Senator Jean Carnahan, and Roy Blunt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Potts
http://www.midgepotts.com
She may have served in the Navy but like my old distant friend JWVerez, she is a sweetheart and a transgender peace activist. Go Midge ! :-)
P.S.: Does anyone in KY know if it is possible to get a Green Party candidate on the ballot and could we be informed of who that candidate is and their website so we can help them out at least some?
Thanks for the feed, I am in the
Show Me State also, and a four
year USN, Viet Vet peace advocate also.
I will look Midge up.
She running for Senate?
Correction on the link. Try
http://www.electmidge.com
Rand Paul is not a libertarian.
Rand Paul does not respresent libertarians.
Rand Paul's views are not libertarian.
Rand Paul is a constitutional conservative.
If you visit a libertarian forum on the web and read comments by libertarians and articles by libertarians you will see no one considers him a libertarian like his father.
"he has the unfortunate burden of being named for Ayn Rand"
The sheer lack of understanding by progressive writers of libertarians is made especially obvious in the unbelievably absurd assumption in this article that Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand libertarians and paleo-conservative Rothbardian libertarians like Ron Paul are very opposed to each other's views. Ron Paul would not name his son after someone with whom he strongly disagrees.
I could go on but these articles about "libertarians" are just ridiculous because of their complete lack of understanding. Why don't the authors take the time to study the politics before writing about them. I read other people's ideas even if I don't agree. If they are writers shouldn't they also be good at research? I'm not a writer but I take the time to read and try to understand other people's views. Take the time to read some books and essays by libertarians before developing absurd theories about them that will just make you look like an ignoramus except to other people who don't know anything about libertarians.
From my understanding, his given name is Randall and he took on the name Rand in adulthood.
"I COULD GO ON but these articles about "libertarians" are just ridiculous because of their complete lack of understanding."
Dont go on. It does no good to tell us how ignorant we are, even if we are truly ignorant. Instead, could you please gather the main points of libertarianism and explain in two or ten paragraphs why the article is wrong. Because that is what is lacking at the moment.
An argument of that size can be scrutinized to see whether it has validity, whether there is at least a single argument that can stand up when there is a slight breeze. A mountain of literature cannot be properly scrutinized. It just overwhelms with volume, even without a single strong argument. I guess part of my mind is stuck in the lead up to the Iraq war, but I get very suspicious when there is a lot of noise, lots of reasons given, but no single argument that can stand up to scrutiny.
What I have read so far supports the article. I have admired Ron Paul's speaches on many occasions. I did visit Ron Paul's site a few times. I thought the people who wrote there must have been crazy, or completely blinded by ideology. I found discussion there that was about:-
* Privatizing all roads.
* Selling all parks.
* Privatizing education.
* Privatizing health.
* How half measures would not work.
* How people who supported Ron Paul only because of his anti-war stance just did not get it.
* People there actually believed that EVERYTHING should be privately owned and the public had no business owning anything.
What I saw there was mostly based on two USA myths, namely:-
* That private enterprise does EVERYTHING better.
* That the rich are rich because they worked hard and the poor are poor because they are lazy.
These "facts" may seem intuitively obvious, but only because they are continuously trumpeted through the corporate media, schools and churches.
I am a libertarian, and find little in common with my views here too.
The main point about libertarianism as I believe it, is that peaceful consensual interaction between people is always better than coercion. The ends don't justify the means. I must decide how I live my life. And as long as I am not interfering with you living your life, I should be let be.
Growing up, I would often remark "That's not fair." And, I would be told "Life's not fair." Well I believe fairness is an ideal that should be aimed for, even if life can't always be fair. It can be more fair.
Peaceful consensual interaction leaves lots of room for different points of view. Support of markets gets way too much attention. Fair markets are consensual and transparent. But I believe markets CAN'T do everything. Charity, volunteering, caring, generosity, art, music, and play, are also important. But that too should be consensual and transparent. If you want to live in a commune, great! But if you want to move out of that commune, that also should be possible.
Markets are good for the same reason evolution is better at designing Man than God could be. Top down management of the details can have it's successes, but overall it can't compete with bottom up experiments and testing of ideas. As a libertarian, I don't trust government to solve problems because it usually goes about it by dictating the solution. Instead governments should be the referee that keeps the competition fair.
One of the most famous failures of markets, is they can't fix the tragedy of the commons. The only solution it has is to divide the commons into private ownership, and work from there. This too, is where government as referee can work. For instance ownership of spectrum is a way of managing radio. The problem, as we have seen all too often, is the referee isn't always honest. Regulatory capture is where the large players have the fix in with the referee. This is one of my biggest gripes about government solutions. The referees end up making rules that sound good in theory, but end up only protecting the markets for those already in the market. They create barriers to entry. We need to be vigilant in preventing government from making rules that do this. We must support continuing evolution of solutions.
So, let me tackle the racism question. It's a difficult one because the way the question is asked is like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" For instance, I am against the drug war. Will you label me a druggie? I have never used drugs, rarely drink, and I don't even use aspirin that much. But the high minded sounding solution of making drugs illegal, fails because it is all about coercion. It is like the referee wanted to create a vibrant market in drugs by creating the rules the way it did. I don't want to use drugs, and it pains me when I see other people using drugs. But don't make them illegal. Solve the problem another way.
I am not a racist. It pains me that discrimination still exists. Slavery is the ultimate example of government rules that libertarians are against. After slavery was outlawed, it was still government rules that gave strength to discrimination. Why did the bigots need Jim Crow laws? Discrimination wasn't just allowed, it was required. Legalizing discrimination is not the same as supporting it. Don't restore Jim Crow. But people should be free to associate or not as they desire. You can't coerce them to love each other. As with the drug problem, solve the problem another way.
There is some discrimination that is currently legal. And as ugly as it is when it occurs, it isn't obvious that discrimination is more common because of it. For example, you don't have to rent to black people if you live in one of the up to four units in your building. That is not illegal. Also, that discrimination doesn't happen that often. And modern social networks and the Internet make social pressures against bigotry more effective. Just look at recent successes of boycotts.
So yes my libertopia of universal non coercion would legalize discrimination. Free to associate means free not to. But I'll settle for near universal non coercion if this gets your support in other areas. The ills of the drug war are obvious. The ills of anti-discrimination laws are not. It is not something I think or worry about except when forced by libertarian naysayers to confront the implications of my philosophy.
Thank you DMG!!! The Libertarianism of Rand, Ayn and Tea Party etc. only exists in the US. Everywhere else in the world, libertarianism is another word for ANARCHISM (a form of socialism). American Libertarianism is a weak attempt by the Right, to look like their political philosophy of maximizing wealth for the wealthy is a political philosophy at all. American Libertarianism was a Cold War invention, a Trojan horse. So, they steal some fire from the radical left to make it look on the surface that they actually have principles. American Libertarianism is an insidious attempt at respectability from the Right. I see a lot of sympathy for Libertarianism on CD; it is very disturbing and sad. Libertarians use the shibboleth of personal freedom, to push their real agenda of CORPORATE FREEDOM. The real Joe Hill would never have supported Libertarianism. Do your homework, think and wake up!!!
TL, you are way off with your statement that "libertarianism is another word for anarchism." That's false. Philosophical anarchism describes a number of social structures, such as worker-owned and -run collectives, community decision making, mutual aid, and the like. It's not a synonym for "chaos" and it doesn't envision a "free market" divorced from human values and local controls.
Anarchist Spain was the only true anarchist government on earth. However, it was crushed by the combined armed might of Stalin, Hitler and Franco - mostly fascist but also communist leaders. (Communism and anarchism actually split on the role of the state.)
I do agree that American libertarianism is just right-wing politics. It's also politically on the opposite side from anarchism. Emma Goldman would agree with Rand Paul about opposition to the wars (an odd quirk of Rand), but she wouldn't agree with unrestricted capitalism. She was a clothing mills worker, working under slave conditions. Other anarchist thinkers are on the same page in that regard.
-TIA
Lots of terms out there that mean different things to different people. Noam Chomsky has noted that American "Libertarianism" is peculiar to the US. If you live in France for example, the word libertarian (libertaire) means anarchist (and their political tradition is much older and yet more vibrant than ours). The American understanding of Libertarianism shows how provincial we are, the term has a radically different meaning outside the US. Chomsky's view of (syndicalist) anarchism is essentially the same as libertarian socialism (which by the your understanding would be a contradiction of terms). We could spend lots of time debating terminology, but this is really beyond the scope of this forum. It would be a lot of work but, and would be a lot more instructive, to define the terms.
It isn't peculiar to the US, nor is the US "provincial", nor does the term necessarily have a radically different meaning outside of the US.
People get confused because politically, we are all used to thinking in left vs right terms. Not liberty vs authority / totalitarian terms. There are two axes, left vs right, AND liberty vs authority / totalitarian. Just as people are somewhere on the left vs right axis, they are somewhere on the liberty vs authority axis.
"Libertarian" can be either left, Chomsky, or right, the Randian types. Just as authoritatiran / totalitarian types can be either left or right.
Leftists of various stripes can agree on a certain goal, yet disagree on how to achieve that goal, how much state power, and how that state power is used, is necessary.
This is why there is always so much confusion on debates about libertarianism. It isn't left or right. It can be either left or right.
Anarchist or libertarian political philosophy has been around since at least the mid 19th century. This political philosophy has always been a revolutionary one, that means LEFT. That the most left of all leftist political ideas could become a Right-wing one should get you to scratch your head. I maintain that the "confusion" you refer to is intentional. Its goal is as simple as it is ancient: divide and conquer.
Sioux Rose
Tom Larsen: Your posts are like wine, they get deeper and richer with time. Great political analysis in relating how the libertarians "steal some fire from the radical left." That is it in a nutshell, isn't it? I like the way you think, and applaud the manner by which your mind dissects a variety of issues.
Ron and Rand Paul are descendants of the American populism of William Jennings Bryan. Presumed is a Protestant theology whereby the universe is a perfectly integrated order, which only God can comprehend because infinite in extent. Humans can comprehend only a finite extent of infinity. Original sin was the eating of the fruit of the tree of KNOWLEDGE. Hereby, the human commits the greatest sin, to presume equality with God, assuming the conceit of knowing what God knows. This occurs when the human can ever know only an incomplete reality. Reason is doomed to the law of unintended consequences.
Rand Paul exhibits this understanding when asserting,
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,' he said. '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 sometimes accidents happen.'"
Sin is alleviated only when following the intuitive sensibilities (instincts?) engendered in the human by God in order to provide the human the means of conforming with God's plan, the character of Adam and Eve before the Fall. It is this subjugation to the instinctual which returns the human to Paradise. Government is the institution of reason, failing because conforming to incomplete human knowledge. Business is the institution of instinct, succeeding because conforming to complete Divine knowledge.
Two world wars destroyed the European faith in intuition. Humans must make their way by creating and conforming to artificial institutions. Rational rather than instinctual, the only salvation available to humanity is political, not economic. Not having suffered the devastation of the world wars, Americans still can afford the archaic belief in the ordered world of human intuition. It is this FAITH which is the foundation of libertarianism. Dismissed is Adam Smith's cautionary,
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." [Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X, Part II, pg.152.]
"And in assuming that all private actors are essentially well intentioned. "
Green is wrong.
The problem, the flaw, isn't the assumption that all private actors are well intentioned. There is no such assumption. The assumption is that a free market will deal with ill intentioned actors. IE, if someone sells milk that contains poison, people will just buy milk from someone else. If someone sells snake oil as a miracle cure, people will just stop buying when they find out the snake oil doesn't work.
That is the flaw.
if we could break corporate power, then we could give libertaranism a second look. i fail to see why the libertarians do mot see the evil in corporate power. the corporate sector is richer, more flexible, greedier, and endowed with much more intelligent and crafty people than the government of any country is. the scandals. all financial of the last twenty years, began with the savings and loans folks and culminated in the stock market and economic crash of 2008. where were the socialists? if governnment is so intrusive and overbearing, why didn"t it stop the bubbles? it let the financiers do as they pleased, giving them the same laissez- faire treatment it afforded the coal mine operatore and deep sea rig operatos. tell the families of the dead and financially devestated that big government is always getting in the way.
There is a Libertarian Party
Rand Paul is a Republican
Ron Paul is a Republican
so are the Pauls
Libertarian or
Republicans...............simple answer Republicans
MSNBC.... fair and balanced ??
see how much air time independent candidates get
between now and the 2012 elections compared to all the
slobbering over Obama or whoever the Democrat candidate
will be.
nice backhand
Stupid idea time. {first draft}
1. A central server paid for out of public funds that all political advertising must be placed on. No exceptions. This for all levels of political office.
2. No paid or unpaid political advertising on TV, radio, newspapers, or any other media.
3. If you want to know who is running in your area and what they stand for and what they are saying then you go to the index webpage of that central server and follow the links to your area and candidates.
4. Sufficient free internet access to all citizens to access this server. Access to this server cannot be throttled, does not count towards useage limits.
5. Access is available where ever wireless internet is available (much as 911 calls are made without charge). The poor have a right to the information just as do the better off. Unfettered access to this political information is just one of their needs.
6. Minimal internet access available, accessible, and free for all. The better off can purchase faster speeds and higher limits. The homeless and poor have as much need for internet communication as anyone else.
7. Again all advertising must be placed on the centralized webserver and all advertising must be accessible and practical to access for people with the minimum internet access. If the minimal internet access is not adequate for your advertising then lobby to improve the level of the minimal internet access to what you feel is needed. Meanwhile redesign your advertising to function properly on the minimal internet access.
___
Part of the intent of this is to take the cash cow away from the media where they do quite well from elections, and where they are able to control much of the information. Part of the intent of this is to have a common access point where all candidates can talk directly to all citizens that are voting. That does not exist with the current "buy advertising" system that we have now. Part of the intent of this is to point out that everyone has a right to some basic internet access.
/stupid idea time.
Return to discussion on libertarianism.
No, No, No,
I am not voting Libertarian....
I was just making the point that
neither are the Pauls.
I am more of a McKinney or Nader
independent voter, however
I may never vote again
I am 0 for 10 in presidential elections
and have voted independent in pres elections
since 76.
Excellent post!
I think the greater impulse at work is to "disestablish" the establishment, using whatever blunt instruments that present themselves. I'm through with voting for "establishment candidate B" to block "establishment candidate A". No more R's or D's for me. I'll probably go green. I realy just want "FDR the 2nd" in power (along with Lincoln's greenbacks). Don't know how to get that though.
Green is spot on, with regard to the vacuous ideology, that Libertarianism truly is. Essentially Libertarians want to replace rule of govt with the rule of corporations (they call it the market). See how that's turned out?
And as an ex-libertarian (I've since dropped that ideology, because being a rational individual and realising the fallacies of my argument, as per Ayn Rand; the light-bulb moment arrived, how can any rational being be a Libertarian?)
Maddow hardly raised a sweat in exposing Paul's 'philosophy'. Libertarianism is, as Green correctly pointed out a bumper sticker philosophy, on which I wasted 10 years of my life on. Does anyone want any old Libertarian books, I have a fully stacked library (what a waste of money). Proceeds will go to progressive causes.
I hear you, brother. I drank that koolaid for over 10 years. It finally dawned on me that all their gov't-bashing, privatization & deregulating & worship of private property over people is just reviving the hoary old evil doctrine of FEUDALISM. The logical endpoint of their policies would be a world of several thousand feudal estates (steered & manipulated by a covert global EMPIRE that needs warring feudal estates to keep ITSELF in the driver's seat). It is the opposite of freedom. Union members grasp better the concept of freedom( than do libertarians) as freedom of action deriving from the strength & power that results from forming together in common cause. This is WHY the nation/state that is of, by, for people was INVENTED. It is a UNION of citizens who came together (thru their representative gov't) to advance THEIR general welfare. The bank won't do it, the corporation won't do it, the emperor/dictator won't do it,the feudal lord-of-the-estate won't do it, & the libertarians SURE AS HELL won't do it.
Though the argument that the Rand and Rachel camps can and should make common cause is indeed flawed and problematic, when Cockburn is "on" he's a great read:
“... Rand Paul, after five minutes of jabbing from Maddow, could have easily swerved the conversation towards issues more congenial to the MSNBC audience than his theoretical take on the Civil Rights Act. He could have denounced the farce of financial 'reform', of Bush’s and Obama’s wars, of constitutional abuses. These are all libertarian positions. But no. He couldn’t stop himself shoving his foot in his mouth. He seems dumb.”
Rand seems "dumb" to me too. I'm not a libertarian, domestic or imported, and have mostly followed the Pauls vicariously through blog articles and comments. But, à la Cockburn, I'm sure of one thing: RAND Paul is to RON Paul as Frank Sinatra, Jr. is to Ol' Blue Eyes.
libertarianism is an attempt to side step with elaborate verbal pyrotechnics criticism of the "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM" i.e.: blatant, remorseless Greed! it's clothes itself in phony dissertations on the laws of the universe, the meaning of evolution, intentionally mis-quoting adam smith...whatever it takes to eventually come to their foregone conclusion that the people at the bottom deserve to be there and the people at the top are chosen by god!(and of course deserve the lions share!)....my favorite "live", libertarian announced to me immediately after Katrina that..."i don't want my money to bail out those people, they knew they lived below sea level, now let them live with their decision!"....this is and always has been and always will be the RIGHT WING of humanity....it is this CANCEROUS thinking that has produced the present world crisis....it celebrates immediate rewards and short term thinking and attracts short fingered, drooling, morons....
Dude, this is the Kentucky Republican Party we're talking about, here.
Sad as it is, Rand represents a big improvement for them.
Most people who quote Adam Smith have never read his first book. Come to think of it, most people who quote him never read his second one either.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Excellent post! Libertarians want to have their arcane historical pseudo-excuses all lined up in a row to behave in an ammoral predatory capitalist way just like any other "religious" Republican. They're just a stuffier bunch of snot-nosed right-wingers.
In the words of Jake LaMotta (thru DeNiro in Raging Bull) and regarding Ron and Rand Paul: "We should put yous both in a ring and you can f--k each other."
Thanks for enhancing the tone of the debate with your perky little insight.
errrr msnbc errrr corporate power errr maddow enabler of Obamas total war , what a joke
Rachel Maddow did a wonderful job of pinning down the racist implications of Paul's "libertarianism".
Rachel Maddow works for a company who is a subsidiary of General Electric. General Electric is one of the largest military industrial corporations that exists today. The Pauls are both extremely against our imperialistic wars and expansionism which is how General Electric makes a huge portion of its profits. Anyone else see a glaring conflict of interests here? Sure, argue all you want about supposed racism and whatever other bullshit you want to sling at Ron and Rand Paul, but when it comes down to it, what other politicians with any legitimacy (sorry Green Party and Libertarian Party, but you have no chance with the current election rules which were written by the Republicrats to keep their "two party" system in tact) have been such huge critics of the wars (both during the Bush regime and now under Obama) and Ron Paul in particular has been the most Constitutionally sound Representative we have seen in my lifetime anyways. It just seems to me like General Electric does not want another Constitutionalist and anti-war voice in the Senate. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. All you supposed anti-war liberals who keep drinking General Electric's kool-aid that they spew through MSNBC and their other media outlets should really take a hard look at real issues and stop just repeating talking points from Rachel Maddow, the General Electric mouthpiece.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
You clearly don't know the difference between an authentic progressive, an authentic traditional Democratic Party liberal and a contemporary DLC faux progressive or faux liberal, probably, because typical of your ilk, you don't know any real history, let alone political history in the first place.
The minute the corporate capitalist military-industrial complex pressured either Paul Sr. or Paul Jr. to vote for their capitalist bottom line interest they would cave like the all wet laissez-faire capitalist chicken shits they are.
I don't know any real history? Fascinating. I guess going to school for political science and history does not qualify me to "know any real history, let alone political history." The fact that I read more books in a month that the average Amercian reads in a year, almost exclusively about history and political science, that obviously means I know nothing. Give me a break. I'm so sick of "your ilk" always assuming that you know everything and are all wise. As far as the "corporate capitalist military-industrial complex," could you please explain to me how government subsidized industry is in any way capitalistic? It is the antithesis of capitalism. It is national socialism, fascism, corporatism, whatever you wanna call it, but it sure as shit is not capitalism. We do not live in a capitalist society, no matter how many news stations tell you we do. We live in a corporatist/fascist nightmare. I would urge you to at least take a good long look at Ron Paul's voting record over his decades in the House of Representatives and tell me if you can find anyone who has voted more in line with the Constitution and the rule of law than he has. As for Ron Paul being a " laissez-faire capitalist chicken shit," I suggest you look at his efforts to audit and completely shut down the Federal Reserve. We have had 3 Presidents shot and killed trying to do the same thing, shut down the monopolistic private bank which controls our currency and therefore controls our society (Licoln, Garfield, and Kennedy). Would a chicken shit take on an entity that has had men far more powerful than him assassinated in broad daylight? I don't know alot about Rand Paul, but if he has half the guts and integrity that his father has, he will be a great Senator.
i've never encountered a libertarian snotface that i didn't want punch right in the nose....my ex tells me it's not their fault, they suffer from "smirky genes"...all the qualifiers in the world ("oh no mr. bletspleg, you've got me all wrong, i'm not THAT kind of libertarian, i'm the better, improved kind) will not change the fact that you are right wing, adolescent egos...the only thing good that can be said of your ilk, is that you are in the majority...