Libertarians Believe in Kingdom Rather than Democracy

Rand Paul’s stupidity: A

Rand Paul’s stupidity: A Historical Perspective.

Paul suggests that he would have voted against the “private business” provisions of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act IN 1964.

The men that staged the sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter couldn’t “boycott” Woolworth’s themselves, as they weren’t allowed to be customers in the first place. Therefore, they were dependent “on the kindness of (white) strangers” to do the right thing and boycott the establishment FOR them… and didn’t THAT work out well?

Paul says he would boycott Woolworth’s “today”, and suggests many others would do the same. But in 1964, THEY DIDN’T. The REASON they staged that sit-in is because the status-quo wasn't working. People WEREN'T boycotting Woolworth's policies. And after 100 years, only an act of Congress could force them to change their ways.

So, when private businesses won’t do the right thing after 100 years, what choice do you have left but to force them by law?

Paul thinks people should “boycott businesses that don’t serve a minority group” to provoke social change (ask gay people how that’s going for them.) One wonders if Paul is boycotting establishments that won't serve gays?

Rand Paul, on the Gulf Oil

Rand Paul, on the Gulf Oil Disaster: http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/5/21/129189390012640815.jpg

Kinda makes me bonkers the

Kinda makes me bonkers the way these right-wing-nuts (TeaNuts?) constantly accuse our kind corporatist President Obama of acting like a tough progressive.   A month after the gusher started the administration has now asked BP to publish information relating to spill and cleanup.  If only Obama was applying even a little boot to BP like...

kicking BP's 'other end' with eminent domain to get the solar patents out of BP's back pocket, or

stating a clear intent to file an amicus brief in the existing lawsuit(s) against BP (showing them the boot), or

stating intent to promulgate a leasing policy that would disqualify bad actors like BP

Thom,  you're usually

Thom,  you're usually accurate in your assertions, or accurate enough to be debatable.  But this statement is just pure nonsense: "Libertarians believe we the people have no right to collectively get together and create an institution called government to protect ourselves from predators."

Libertarians believe in government.  They are statists.  If a collection of people get together and execute a contract to protect themselves from predators, and all those people abide by that contract, then what we call "government" is simply the institutions and methods we use to hold people to the contract.  Libertarians most definitely support such institutions and methods.  Anarchists don't.  Libertarians do.  Rand Paul, the Republican, is NOT a libertarian, or at least he's not running as one.  And the Tea Baggers are, likewise, NOT libertarians, despite what they might claim.

I wonder sometimes why you deliberately mischaracterize libertarians.  I tend to think that it's because you, like anyone in the media, feel a pressure to make your assertions concise and to the point.  The push for brevity is critical because, in the modern information age, we all have lots to do and think about.  So, long-winded people don't get much traction.  But the pursuit of brevity (and, in turn, it's pursuit of attention) can lead you to make false assertions.  But I'm an avid listener to your show, both the local one in PDX and the national one.  And I think I've heard you say that you once considered yourself libertarian.  Perhaps your mischaracterizations of libertarianism are a kind of "rebound" effect.  When we lose our first (or nearly first) ideals as youngsters, we tend to recoil pretty far.  My guess would be that you're still not over the crash of your youthful libertarianism.  You're still resentful that libertarianism failed/betrayed you so badly.  Of course, any idealism will eventually betray you, because idealists, including libertarians, live in a delusional and false universe.  But we always have our biggest backlash against our early ideals.  Then again, I'm wrong all the time and I'm probably wrong about this, too.

Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd make an attempt to characterize libertarianism more accurately in the future.

Thanks for all you do.

Oh and you really think the

Oh and you really think the corporations are going to give the "extra" money they save from NOT paying taxes or "safety regulations" to the WORKERS? For example, you take minimum wage away, and see how low wages drop.

You libertarians make it

You libertarians make it lucidly clear that you are against Democracy with the wolf and the sheep parable. But the US ISN'T and HAS NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY! We are a Constitutional Democratic Republic where "Rule of Law" ultimately prevails. That's where we have seen Federal Authority in the enforcement of the 14th Amendment and thusly the Civil Rights Act. ALL examples of where the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY do not usurp the RIGHTS OF THE MAJORITY, have all been protected by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! Show me where the "free market" has ever protected the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority?

And in your libertarian utopia, who gets to enforce the rights of the minority against the rule by the rich and the corporatocrisy? Who's empowered since government is ineffectualized by vitiation and cataclysmic de-funding? 

>>> A Juxtaposition ??   The

>>> A Juxtaposition ??

The ORIGINAL Tea Party Movement (circa 1773):

Protested a Multi-National Corporation (The British East India Company) from passing a corporate tax onto the American consumer while British East India received a corporate tax break..

RESULT >> Masses of Americans rallied by boycotting British East India and dumped Tons of  tea into the ocean...

TODAY"S Tea Party Movement (circa 2010):

Protest Corporate Taxes and Less Government Oversight.

RESULT >> A Massive British Corporation (British Petroleum) dumps BILLIONS of Gallons of Crude into in the ocean..

Strange Coincedence??

I think that this debate

I think that this debate should be about the rhetoric that Rand Paul is using and not whether Libertarians are better than Progressives.   I consider myself a Progressive and yet I find Progressives I don't agree with on every point.  I like some of what the Libertarian party is about.  However, I do not look to every person that calls their self a Libertarian to see if I agree with Libertarianism.  I disagree with almost everything Republican stand for, but if they have a valid point, I will listen to it.

I do not think that because Rand Paul says something stupid (well, this is the second stupid thing I know of that he said) that this discredits Libertarians or the Libertarian party.  Rand Paul is merely discrediting himself and pointing out the obvious hole in his logic!  I think he is merely letting us know what Rand-ism is.

Therefore to argue his point and not Libertarianism, I will state the following:

If we accept that Obama is actually putting his "...boot heel on the throat of BP..." then the other extreme, which Rand Paul seems to be advocating for, is that Obama put his "boot heel on the throat" of the People. BP's mistake will cost the People in lost wages, profits and lowered quality of life as their recreational areas are destroyed.  Their food supply is being endangered.  Rand seems to want to let the People pay for these damages brought on by BP and not the corporations that are at fault and negligent.  Rand Paul doesn't want the President to protect the small businesses that are affected by BP's mistakes, only the large corporations that have no allegiance to the USA. 

How far do we carry these ideas?  Is Rand Paul implying that he doesn't think we should have civil suits either to help hold people and corporations to account when they make mistakes or are negligent?  Should we just do away with the courts too?

Of course, the obvious flaw in his thought processes is the idea that Obama is holding his "...boot heel on the throat..." of any multi-national petroleum corporation.  He has granted many new permits since April 22 for deep water drilling that is exempted from environmental concerns (like what would happen if the well ruptures) like the one that BP was granted for this well.  I do not expect Obama to hold any one to account, beyond scolding them for good PR in press.  BP will get off with only paying a little and the People of the Gulf Coast will be stuck with the bill in lost wages, profits and quality of life...like the people in Alaska who never were compensated for the damages of the Exxon Valdez disaster so many decades ago.  Tax payers will pay for the rest of the bill and Rand Paul seems to want the taxpayers to continue to pay for these types of clean up, instead of making corporations do things in ways that are safe.

Well, it is no wonder people

Well, it is no wonder people are entranced by freedom by a majority that would allow it.

I do understand when race is called out, we are racists. Some folks want to be allowed their racism. I do get the freedom angle, but I do not think we would have the progress we have without legislation to say no discrimination in public square. It gives a person of any color the opportunity to file a lawsuit and show his case that he is the victim of racism.

I do think it is inflammatory, but I think we would not have the integration the youth have today, which IS becoming a SORT of color blindness.

It is inflammatory because of backlashes that occur. The Civil Rights Act came out of Black outcry for Jim Crow discrimination. The struggle had many casualties and that is the backlash and discord.

Today, we hear an outcry of grievances by Whites, I hear people say White males are feeling they are losing, particularly.

I kind of get that, but the Civil Rights law of 1964 seems to have no racial preference, that I detect. Minorities can say, I want to sue for discrimination, here is my case,  jury, judge.  What stops a White person from doing the same? 

It comes down to in the end, the court has the final word, so the law is about if someone has a complaint, file a lawsuit. Just as there have been any other race or skin color. White skin is skin color, so if it is racial discrimination, file a suit, nothing stops it, unless there is no harm evident or proven based on racial discrimination.

I think the thing is, the law sets foundation that you cannot discriminate based on race, skin color, sex or nationality. I know that is abhorrent to those of all races, they want to be allowed their racism. There will always be racial prejudice, whether White on Black or Black on White or any other combination. 

It doesn't say Black people only. I do get that people want to stop the racial talk, there is a very emotional thing that has baggage that is just unpleasant. I wish us all luck on that to treat people equally.

That seems to be the issue for Libertarians. I get it, but without it, we would not have made inroads to interracial schools, workplaces, neighborhoods and social events. There would be less "I know that PERSON" and less fear/hate because of it.

I do not know how if you allow segregation to continue, how that is equal and there is how I see it.

We legislate behavior every day, so how does it harm someone that does not like a race to have guidelines of behavior? They can exclude this race or that race, but how is that equal protection of the laws? If it is proven to be discriminatory and show harm or pattern of harm, then that is the law. If you think you are entitled to your racism, then see the consequences of the behavior, in a legal setting. What happened, did someone say I hate (X) or did they throw a brick through a window?

There was a requirement to integrate, unfortunately causing strife and casualties.

I just know the people were suffering under Jim Crow, there was a large contingency that stuck their neck out and show of solidarity, asking for /demanding equal rights. What to do? Is it right to allow those people to be left in less than equal status, with no law to restore rights? No equal means equal, not preference to one. There is the rub, how to enforce without preference?

It is a shame to define a person by race, but many want to keep their culture. Where is a balance point?

It's a shame we need a law, when equal protection of the laws is right there. Not, just "certain people" and up to the state as to which people that are equally protected, hired, where they live, who gets to buy/rent a house in which neighborhood.  The schools would follow the rental and real estate laws, but how is it equal to say, you cannot buy in this area? We have financial opportunity with the schooling, hiring, real estate laws, that forms a current of improvement. Is it still needed? Not sure when we can call it fair if people insist on rationalizing weeding out this race or that one.

I can only imagine that if Whites want to file a suit, they can. Let a jury decide and if it is racial discrimination, then deal with it. There has been a history of White privilege and if there IS something unfair racially, the law is there, not specifically  just for Blacks.

One day, we may get past this but there is no perfect solution. I do not agree to allow discrimination to continue, some disagree. Maybe we could discuss how the law of Affirmative Action may be racial preference or is it still valid that extra points to offset privileges or biases. We have legacy points because of parentage. I have to say, grades are essential. If someone wants to go to college (X) and is denied, they may have a case for racial discrimination. I know that there are traditionally Black or traditionally White colleges. If one is excluded today against their will, there can be remedy. There is definitely a system that is going to aggravate someone, somewhere, sometime.

I do not know all the answers, but I believe without Civil Rights Act, we still had state by state  institutionalized discrimination. With it, we have youth more accepting of people, regardless of race. We have done SOMETHING that has answered the demand and seems to help desegregate and improve opportunities for more people.

I just know the theory is what Thom says here. The majority rule, leaves minorities out and feeling suppressed by power. Money is power, leaving a few with most money to continue having power over those having less, increasingly creating tyranny by the few over the many. Which is in essence, royalty.

"Moreover I would like the

"Moreover I would like the government to stay within the bounds of this document and not intrude into my life as long as I am not intruding upon other people's rights."

But here's the rub, so to speak. The libertarian view fails to consider that without rules, there is no way to ensure that doing what you want to do will not intrude upon someone else's rights. If you want to drill an oil well and it leaks into my drinking water, how will this be handled? Perhaps we need rules to govern the drilling of oil wells and agencies to enforce those rules. Unless you live on your own private island or in the back woods far from other people, it is unlikely that anything you do will have no effect on others. And this does not even consider those benefits and protections offered you by the society at large. In my view, libertarians are as naive children intent only on their self gratification oblivious to the impact of their actions on others. When one chooses to live and work in a society, availing oneself of the benefits of living in such a society, limits on absolute personal freedom are imposed  by necessity. In fact, every interaction one has with friends, family, and others imposes some constraints on personal freedom. That is the price one pays to associate with others. As Thom points out, only Kings are able to indulge themselves thusly -- that is until those subjected to the resultant tyranny decide to unite to secure for themselves a bit of the libertarian goodies. We know where that leads.

stonsphear:  Let the liars

stonsphear:  Let the liars lie so that we can better see their lies. Let the ignorant voice their ignorance so we can better see their ignorance, and let us be rid of the lot. If that's the libertarian view then I can see as how it has merit.  - I would tend to personally agree with you but I think the Libertarian philosophy may be more like let people be who they are and let the chips fall as they may, and if there is a dispute that can not be decided peaceably, then let the courts and the constitution settle it.