Rand Paul, son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky on Tuesday. He won with Tea Party support and called himself a “card-carrying member.”
Since his victory over the mainstream, party-backed candidate, Paul has come under fire for his opposition to the 1964 civil rights bill. He told Rachel Maddow that he doesn’t believe in any form of racism and that the government should ban all forms of discrimination in its institutions, but should not regulate business.
So he was saying that lunch counters in private stores should be allowed to remain segregated.
Paul said he believes in local solutions. Local solutions mean that gay and lesbian teachers are protected in Dallas Independent School District, but few other places in Texas, for example.
The Washington Post‘s Dave Weigel, who writes the conservative blog Right Now, said, “Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses.”
Time magazine reports that Paul now says he regrets going on Rachel Maddow — but he doesn’t say he regrets his comments.
Alan Greenspan, an accolyte of Ann Rand, admitted after the economic meltdown during a congressional hearing that libertarianism was flawed – that free markets are not always self correcting.
A fantastic in-depth look at how this clash of philosophies played out in reality is freely available at:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/
Guaranteed to blow you away – it puts libertarianism to the test – watch it and it will raise grave and disturbing challenges to the popular philosophy.
Does anyone know if Rand Paul was named after Ann RAND???
Tea Partier’s as defined by media as right-wing extremists do want less taxes and smaller government. I think it is a movement still defining itself and while Rand Paul would probably want to be the face of the movement coming from the direct lineage of his father and the libertarian philosophy are uniquely different than what the Tea Party will define itself to be
desegregating private businesses to not discriminate is an imperative because people and wall street when left to their own devices will become corrupt.
expecting regulation and government to bring social utopia is a flawed philosophy and fiscal responsibility cant be obtained by a larger expanding federal government. Nazism Facism were all failed social experiments that the masses all bought into is a welcome change and step towards social utopia. People should question their government and pastors and bankers and insurance agents or they will be duped.
David: “Right Now” is the name of Dave Weigel’s blog, which is owned and hosted by the Washington Post, where Weigel works as a reporter/blogger.
Ummmmm…Dave Weigle WORKS for the Washington Post writing a blog called “Right Now”.
https://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/
This article, especially its title, is disgusting. Who’d a thunk it? That the statists (liberals and neocons) would band together in a pathetic attempt to discredit the libertarian movement by completely misrepresenting Dr Paul’s words and positions? Oh, right. Everybody. We all knew it was coming. But the lies and misrepresentations of the statists will not be enough to lull the nation back to sleep.
Liberty will reign forever in America.
And there is nothing the controlled media can do about it.
Take your damn soma and enjoy the bread and circus, sheep.
You do realize, don’t you, that “Right Now” isn’t a “conservative” organization, and Dave Weigel isn’t it’s spokesman. Mr. Weigel is a *columnist* at the Washington Post who writes a column about the GOP called “Right Now”.
If this kind of sloppy reading, much less fact-checking, is what passes for journalism these days, well, we’re all doomed.
Dave Weigel writes for the Washington Post for a blog called Right Now. His journalistic focus for the past few years has been the conservative movement, most recently involving the Tea Party. He is a very respected journalist who frequently appears on MSNBC to give his insight on the conservative movement. While I applaud you for quoting him the least you could have done was a cursory Google search to find out who he was. He would probably not bother to correct this story but I felt someone should.
“The Washington Post quotes Dave Weigel, a conservative spokesman from the group Right Now” YOU GOT ALL THE WORDS RIGHT AND STILL GOT IT ALL WRONG!
i would be kind, but i like dave weigel. in short, you’re an idiot. dave weigel isn’t a “a conservative spokesman from the group Right Now.” he’s a washington post blogger, with a blog named right now, who covers conservative political groups such as the tea party and the republican party (right now is a pun, not an association to the website you attributed him to). and he’s no conservative spokesman, he happens to hold a generally “conservative” take on the rand paul debate. he is definitely not a conservative (and he might not even be a liberal, no one has really pinned down his political ties). take some time on research before you misattribute people.
Alan Greenspan has some silly ideas about what constitutes “capitalism.” In a free market, there would be no federal reserve in the first place, because interest rates would be set by the market, preventing any single authority from setting them too low for an extended period of time. Also, a free market wouldn’t have Fannie and Freddie operating with special privileges in the secondary mortgage market as GSEs. Fannie’s lowering of credit requirements distorted the market and allowed many more people without proper credit to get loans for home purchases. Tom Woods’ excellent book “Meltdown” has more details.
Dave Weigel, a conservative spokesman from the group Right Now???
Uh, no… try Dave Weigel, writer of the “Right Now” blog at the Washington Post.
https://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/rand_paul_telling_the_truth.html#more
Journalism anyone?
Dude! Dave Weigel is another blogger at the Washington Post whose blog, called Right Now, reports on the conservative movement. He’s a frequent guest on the Rachel Maddow Show and Countdown.
It would have been a good idea to at least follow Ezra Klein’s link when he was quoting Weigel.
You might want to put up a correction. He tweeted about it.
FROM THE ONLINE EDITOR: The post has been corrected to reflect that Dave Weigel writes a conservative blog for The Washington Post. Thanks for reading Dallas Voice.
P.S. — You all can harp on the error that was in the original post all you want, but it doesn’t change what Rand Paul said. The video doesn’t lie, folks. Rand Paul is a nutjob, period.
Libertarianism, in it’s purist form as theorized by Rand, is a sweet, fluffy philosophy that is embedded in the American concept of rugged idividualism and manifest destiny. Freedom and liberty are values commonly held by all Americans. No argument here from both liberals and conservatives.
The problem is that in the real world some of these wonderful rugged idividuals might take undue advantage, cut corners, and exact a toll on society. In economic terms this is known as a negative externality – which is that the enterprise fails to account for a cost accrued to society by it’s operation. An example is an oil spill, or a tradgedy of the commons, or an oppressive business practice that feeds on human prejudice to harm a segment of society.
Historically, the Fed was created to stem the damage to an increasingly complex economy where banks were an integral part of free market capitalism works. It would be hard to find a respected economist today who would advocate going back to the pre-Fed gilded age. aside from the Austrian School, which has become largely irrelavant.
To say that Alan Greenspan has some “silly ideas” about what constitutes “capitalism ” is like saying Einstein has some silly ideas about Relativiy. Puritanical libertarianism is a fluffy, idealistic, utopian idea that shares a common feature with communism – it turns a blind eye to the effect of a part of human nature that fuels capitalism – greed and insecurity. Libertarians get it half right – free markets work – but as Milton Friedman criticized the movement – free markets work only so long as people follow the rules. Who makes the rules? Who or what enforces the rules? Libertarians beleive markets police themselves.
Should we trust BP to do what is right/ safe/ and hold themselves accountable?
Rand Paul is a nice guy but as a law maker he needs to dig deeper into his history books to see if we learned anything from libertarian practices in the past.
Robin from Colorado: Of course, what we “learned” from so-called libertarianism in the past is that the evil private sector exploits the workers, and gallant crusaders for justice in government rescued them, blah blah blah. “Regulation” keeps us safe from predators, etc. THIS is the cartoon caricature. This is the comic book version of history. This almost universally believed b.s. is not even slightly true.
As for “Rand Paul is a nutjob,” this is the statement of a drone. A drone who thinks anyone who slightly deviates from Official Opinion must be a “nutjob,” for haven’t our betters told us what to think already? Who is this guy to have a different thought? Why, he must be sinister! He can’t possibly have any arguments for his position.
Americans are brainwashed drones.
Tommy, my dear: Don’t take it so hard, Dude. Nobody is calling Rand Paul a nutjob – most of us just think he is naive when it comes to understanding economics and history. I’m a 62 year old retired homebuilder, worked in the private sector my whole life – been around the block a few times. I can tell you that in my experience, rules and regulations – enforced by government – keep the wheels of capitalism greesed and rolling smoothly. I’m a commited independent not aligned with either party. As far as freedom and liberty – I’m all for it – but unlike you, I believe it is a crime to deprive another person of their freedom and liberty because of their religion, race, or sexual orientation. So far those of us who believe this is an ethical argument seem to be winning – but good luck. I’m sure Rand Paul will be a “useful idiot” to help educate us Americans – brainwashed drones. LOL
Robin, Rand is short for Randall. That he was named after Ayn Rand is, according to the family, a common assumption, and it was Rand’s preference that he go by the shortened form of his name.
Our Constitution is a libertarian document. Our current Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan has commented in the past that the Constitution is “flawed”, but still most of us agree that it establishes a far more equitable form of free society than the forms of government in any other country. Our use of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” tend to be very ambiguous because the definition of what those philosophies are varies greatly. Political philosophy in the purest form varies from hard right to hard left to complete authoritarian (dictatorship) to complete libertarian (no government). Of course, Republicans are varying shades of rightist, Democrats are varying shades of leftist, and both of these parties, while at one time tending to be more respectful of our Constitution, which is not pure libertarianism but recognizes the role of government in enforcing property and freedom rights, now both parties in Washington use the Interstate Commerce Clause as an excuse to completely ignore the Constitution’s strict limits on their power. We’re now experiencing the consequences of this, crushing national debt that will ultimately destroy the value of your savings, pension and Social Security dollars through imminent rapid inflation.
The so-called “tea party” movement is not so much a movement against a particular political party as a convergence of citizens who are alarmed at our exploding national debt and see us ultimately suffering the same fate as Greece. Rand Paul is not a representation of the Republican Right as he is a symbol of both major parties’ need to not ignore the Constitution but engage in a discussion of the need to return more of the responsibility for governance to the States and People, as the Constitution says. The Civil Rights Act discussion on the Maddow program was somewhat a sideshow that serves as a symbol of our neglect of the Constitution. The language of the Civil Rights Act could very quickly be integrated into the Constitution as an amendment – removing it from the realm of federal law – but is not getting done.
“Historically, the Fed was created to stem the damage to an increasingly complex economy where banks were an integral part of free market capitalism works. It would be hard to find a respected economist today who would advocate going back to the pre-Fed gilded age. aside from the Austrian School, which has become largely irrelavant.”
I think you should go back and read about the history of banking in general and central banking in particular. They were created by large bankers to enforce banking cartels and gain control over the banking system in general. Those complexities which lead to negative outcomes can be traced back to government intervention prior in nearly all cases. Whether it was licensing banks in the first place, tying their reserves to the debt of the state, allowing banks to suspend contracts for specie during a bank run, to allowing fraudulent claims on money (factional reserves). Government has always been in bed with bankers and it’s negative effects both economically, politically and morally are obvious to those who investigate.
“Milton Friedman criticized the movement – free markets work only so long as people follow the rules. Who makes the rules? Who or what enforces the rules? Libertarians beleive markets police themselves. ”
Perhaps you should read some of the works by his son, David Friedman. A consequentialist market anarchist. Libertarians believe that policing is done in a distributed fashion just as every other service. Through courts, arbiters, and individuals. Like like now… without the monopoly. You fail to mention that BP for example gets special exemption from policing by the government. That the land it held was leased from the government… likely for far below market value. That the government subsidizes BP’s business by forcing individuals into using the road system and subsidizing other businesses which utilize it. That BP’s product inherently causes pollution. Pollution that the government allowed as the gas engine first took off by negating property rights for “the greater good.”
“To say that Alan Greenspan has some “silly ideas” about what constitutes “capitalism ” is like saying Einstein has some silly ideas about Relativiy.”
Greenspan was never libertarian. He was Randian. Or at least hung out with her/them. Randians share beliefs with libertarians but were often hostel toward even the word. Besides… the statement regarding Einstein makes little sense. Einstein created relativity. Greenspan hung out with Rand. You are conflating his importance, his supposed beliefs and his actual beliefs. If you want to make the comparison you should do so with Mises or Rothbard or one of the other actual free market theorists.
Never trust a republican. If we, as the gay and lesbian community live by those simple words, we will be better off. Republicans may try to smile to our face, but they do not, nor will they ever like us.
I went to a republican precinct convention one time in my life. Within 10 minutes of being there, the topic of concersation went to homosexuals and how we are all sexual deviants. They did not know I was gay so I just sat there and listened as they blasted gays and lesbians. Finally one of them asked me what I thought and then everyone turned to be really nice to me and said oh, they didn’t really mean it like that. Republicans are two faced hypocrits that would love to send us all off to die in a German concentration camp.
WOW. Darryl Schmitz and BILE, thanks for the in-depth analysis of my original comment.
I admit that I “failed to mention” many things about BP, Milton Friedman, CDS and the derivatives market, fannie and freddie, but there is only so much space. I’m also a retired Colorado homebuilder with a lot of practical experience in business, but not an academician or lawyer, so I stand little chance in going mono y mono in a debate on the various iterations of libertarianism. My world view is pretty all-American in that i love our free markets, but want them governed/policed by “public” interests. I am a “cultural libertarian” and believe live and let live leads to a healthier society in the long run. I also believe the past has left a legacy that should not be ignored – justice and fair treatment are not automatically givens by simply following the constitution. Private property rights are important but can and have been taken too far and become tools of oppression (plantation mentality). If you look at the GINI Coifficient for the US and compare it to other countries we seem to be sliding towards an gilded age oligarchy of robber barons. Even Warren Buffet believes this is becoming a problem.
The Health Care Reform bill has been characterized as the greatest “redistribution of wealth” legislation since FDR or LBJ – which to Warren Buffet and my own way of thinking, is not such a bad thing. The mandate is tricky and very unpopular and will be it’s achilles heal but with the subsidies it might become popular in time and be difficult to repeal or defeat in the supreme court.
I spent my youth as an educator, and 1 year in the NYC prison system, directing a special rehabilitation project for violent offenders. If left an indellible mark on my psyche in how I look at the stratification that exists in our society and the ills as a result. I remember visiting my son’s college and discussing libertarianism with some folks and asking them if they knew how trully stratified society was, particulary with regard to race, would they still advocate for hands off free enterprise or would they advocate for some kind of intervention aside from just free markets. Their answers showed they hadn’t actually put themselves in another’s shoes and thought about these things. Libertarianism really is a dream for a world in the far distant future, in which humans and culture has evolved to a higher degree. Until then, I kind of like the idea of regulation, safety nets, police and courts, and public institutions and parks.
Rand Paul lives a priveledged life – like me he was born with a “silver spoon” – but unlike me I think he has embraced a true pure belief in an ideology to provide him with all the answers. I doubt that any ideology is free from flaws so I remain independent and radically centrist – drawing answers from all sides.
I wish more commentators were paying attention to the content of the video and not aspects of the politics. Listen to what Paul is asked and how he answers: Do you support the ADA? He does not say no, but goes on what can only be called a tangential rant about his small-gov’t talking points: That we need to ‘work” on solutions, like getting a guy a job on the first floor instead of “having an elevator installed.” This guy must be the least informed user of public buildings ever. A job on the first floor … of WHAT building? My office has an elevator, but the “first” floor is the garage, and my company is only ON the top floor — is he suggesting those in wheelchairs get to force businesses to open ground-floor offices? And c’mon, the ADA is less about requiring ELEVATORS (which, cor crying out loud, are common) and more about wheelchair ramps to GET INSIDE THE DAMN BUILDING in the first place. And making toilets and parking spaces large enough for wheelchairs. And Paul doesn’t address PUBLIC buildings — can the feds mandate that a COURTHOUSE have a ramp? The ADA is pretty new, still — 20 years old? — but its concepts are common sensical and not overly intrusive … or at least, some of the basics can seem that way. Libertarianism is better as a philosophy than a political position. A true libertarian would be opposed to requiring car insurance, to ANY handgun controls (bring you Luger on a plane? As long as you don’t use it, who am I to stop you?), to the FDA (if you DO poison someone, you’re in trouble, but until then, sell whatever you want to children). When Paul pushes for the repeal of Medicare and SSN, he’ll be a true libertarian. Until then, his Marie Antoinette-esque way of saying “let the cripples work on the ground floor” shows him to be a heartless, ignorant fool.