Taranto aptly called it “a rookie mistake” when newly nominated Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul told an interviewer that he was troubled by the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which Paul otherwise supported – crossed the line of regulating behavior by private businesses. However intellectually coherent Paul’s position might be in a narrow, libertarian-absolutist, freshman-dorm-room kind of way, politically and realistically it’s nuts.
Or as Taranto says:
In this matter, Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act’s restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws.
If he’s going to play in the big leagues, Paul needs to stop making rookie mistakes. In discussing the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Paul apparently felt a need to stick up for the spiller:
“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,'” said Paul who overwhelmingly won Tuesday’s GOP Senate primary in Kentucky and is a favorite of Tea Party activists. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticisms of businesses.”
“I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill,” Paul continued. “I think it’s part of this blame game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault, instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”
I’m a big fan of capitalism myself, but geez. There will be other, better opportunities to criticize Obama and the Democrats for excessive corporate-bashing. For now, Paul would be wise to simply refrain from joining the dogpile on top of the oil industry.
If I were to describe my political philosophy in one word, that word would be “libertarian.” My libertarian slogan of choice is “free people and free markets, under the rule of law.” The “rule of law” part is a recognition that if you go too far down the spectrum toward small government, you wind up with anarchy. To become a Senator, Rand Paul needs to stop following his father that far down the libertarian trail.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Rand Paul: Giving Libertarianism a Bad Name | All That Is Necessary... -- Topsy.com
I have to agree with Rand Paul and John Stossel on the issue, while I often disagree with
Libertarians on some issues as a Conservative this is one where I can agree, when it comes to a
private business Government should be involved as little as possible. I don't want to see people
turned away because of religious, skin color, gender, ethnicity or any other excuse but just as we
get angry at the liberals and progressives when they want to force us to accept behaviors we don’t
like. Liberals and Progressives are like the Borg of Star Trek they want a collective not a nation
of individuals, and with a nation of individuals you will have people with views you may not
like. But Tolerance is not about liking the thing you are tolerating, it doesn't mean you have to
like it. Which if I may point out the Liberals and Progressives aren’t very tolerant of Conservative
and Libertarian views.
Excellent post. I am reposting in full on my blog. Thanks for the permission.
So, you support affirmative action?
Some kind of libertarian you are, sir!
Too small a government, sheesh..
I don’t support Affirmative Action, not in the 21st century, in an era where America has proven it is open-minded enough to elect a black man to the highest office in the land.
But under extraordinary circumstances, at a particular time in history, I think the Civil Rights Act was necessary and appropriate.
hi, I found some great posts you could be interested to check out. Please explore: Click here