During his quixotic 2008 presidential campaign, I always assumed that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), despite his protestations to the contrary, was content with injecting non-interventionism, Federal Reserve bashing, and sound money policies into the Republican debates, knowing that his chances of ending up in the White House were vanishingly small. Running for a Senate seat in Kentucky, and with a decent chance of victory, Paul’s son Rand is slinking away from his libertarian roots, after the shellacking he took for suggesting that private business should be free to do (or not do) business with whomever they chose (there is much more to the argument than my incomplete summary, so if you are unfamiliar with the debate, you can start here).
I guess that is one way of putting his “principled” stand to allow private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. Sadly, Rand’s libertarian “principles” seem to disappear when talking about any and all individual rights, particularly if the individual in question is blessed with owning a vagina.
Califlander
… particularly if the individual in question is blessed with owning a vagina.
In Paulland, ownership rights remain with the husband, the nearest male relative, or any male who can plausibly claim “well, she asked for it.”
Lev
I just don’t have anything left to say about Libertarianism. They honestly believe that the right of a businessman to be racist is more important than the right of a black person or woman to get a job or buy a house. I don’t know too many libertarians in my real life, but if I did, I suspect I’d have to resist the urge to literally shake some sense into them pretty frequently.
Mumphrey
So this is off topic, but I don’t see any threads since last night about the election. Why isn’t anybody talking about what looks to me like voter suppression in Arkansas yesterday? I’ve seen nothing on yahoo news, nothing in TPM, and there was nothing in the Washington Post about it. Arkansas opens only 2 of 40 polling places in one of Halter’s best counties and nobody talks about it? What the hell? How is this not the big story of the day?
Derek
Vaginas have a well-known liberal bias.
@Lev: I just don’t have anything left to say about Libertarianism.
Man, you said it. Fuck them.
Mayur
@Lev: I just don’t have anything left to say about Libertarianism. They honestly believe that the right of a businessman to be racist is more important than the right of a black person or woman to get a job or buy a house. I don’t know too many libertarians in my real life, but if I did, I suspect I’d have to resist the urge to literally
shakesmack some sense into them pretty frequently.FTFY.
Jade Jordan
There are very few “private businesses”. People have to drive on taxpayer financed roads to get to these businesses. They use taxpayer financed water and utilities. The food is safe because it is inspected and monitored by the government (financed with all taxpayer dollars). If there is a fire taxpayer dollars are used to respond, put it out, and save the owner and customers. If there is a robbery or other incident, they call the police (yep, all taxpayer dollars provide this service too). If anybody needs to use the bathroom they use taxpayer financed plumbing?
A private business is in a rural area with no paved roads, an outhouse, kerosene lamps, and home grown food. If there is a fire you put it out with buckets from your well, if there is trouble you handle it with your rifle.
There are very few private businesses. There are privately owned businesses over layed on multiple layers of public infrastructure and public services. Since taxpayers of all races, religions, and creeds pay for the infrastructure and public services they deserve access to the businesses if they can afford to patronize them.
Quaker in a Basement
Sadly, Rand’s libertarian “principles” seem to disappear when talking about any and all individual rights, particularly if the individual in question is blessed with owning a vagina.
Of course, owning a vagina isn’t for everyone. Some would rather just rent one.
Lev
@Derek: No kidding. My guess is that you could fit all the libertarians in the country into a medium-sized city like Charlotte, NC, and you could fit all the people there who aren’t upper-middle class white guys into a local Denny’s.
beltane
Can anyone name a single libertarian society that was even remotely successful
stuckinred
@Jade Jordan: Son, you be trippin.
Eric U.
@Jade Jordan: you make a lot of good points, but I’m pretty sure if the libertarians got their way, a lot of that would be gone. The reality is if they got their way we would live in a distopian serfdom, but they are a lot like republicans in that way.
The first real libertarian I met seemed like a pretty smart guy (science Ph.D.) until he started talking about politics. I was a teenager, so I was no stranger to fantasy philosophies, but this guy wanted to get rid of pollution by having the victims of pollution sue polluters. The courts would then take care of the problem. I was shocked.
stuckinred
KO has a BP Baghdad Bob video coming. When I looked on youtube there are the sponsored BP videos.
Derek
@beltane:
I cannot name a single libertarian society, period.
Mike Kay
I keep hearing Oil companies whine that if you lift the cap on damages then no one can afford to drill. Why do Oil companies hate the invisible hand and free market principles, and love goverment regulation (caps).
Rick Taylor
What does he say about immigration? I’m willing to give any Libertarian a pass on this issue (or at least admit their position is based upon idealism) if they also argue that immigration should be entirely unrestricted, which is the consistent Libertarian position.
danimal
If you’re looking for libertarians, go to the nearest IT department.
Good luck shaking sense into them, though.
soonergrunt
@Califlander:
You beat me to it.
@Lev:
And then you could nuke that fucker. Problem solved.
soonergrunt
@danimal:
I’m surrounded by these people. And they work for the government. I love telling them how we should just fire all of them and keep me, the contractor on in the best practice of libertarian principles.
I went back to work this afternoon. Right back to the desk I left two years ago.
Shalimar
All vaginas belong to Rand.
Elvis Elvisberg
Not too mention that Rand was actually too chicken to even make the argument, as TNC pointed out.
scav
whew, even their own view family life must be entirely theory–trumps–reality–based. The principles of the son may not prove in practice to be the assumed abstract principles of the father? Are we discussing generations of clones in a vacuum?
jl
But the block quote featured at the end of the link specifically mentions abortion as one issue that distinguishes Rand Paul from libertarians:
“Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.”
Emphasis added.
What am I missing?
I am not defending libertarianism. Moynihan seems to be criticizing Rand Paul for saying that he would ever support any US troops overseas for any reason. That criticism seems clownishly extreme to me.
You cannot be a libertarian if you ever support any troops over seas? Like even for treaty commitments for mutual defense against attacks on Freedom?
I don’t have much to say about libertarians, at least Reason style libertarians, anymore either, because what they pump out doesn’t make any sense to me. The last link to a Reason piece from here about Helen Thomas and political bias seemed completely incoherent to me.
stuckinred
@soonergrunt: Not coming to Georgia?
Mnemosyne
@Jade Jordan:
Don’t forget that what Rand Paul is really saying is that he thinks that business owners should be allowed to use the power of the government to enforce discrimination. After all, if a black family shows up and sits down in your segregated restaurant, who does Paul think is going to be in charge of enforcing the restaurant’s policy? Unless he wants to go all Wild West and say that business owners can start shooting customers on sight, he’s expecting that business owners can call the police (aka the government) and use that force to have the unwanted people thrown out.
Paul isn’t against the use of government force. He just wants to change who’s allowed to use it, and against whom.
BombIranForChrist
But, but … libertarians are pure and principled! If you do not understand our seemingly contradictory and hypocritical stances, it is because you do not have a brain capable of thinking in 400 separate dimensions simultaneously! That is exactly 23 more dimensions than Obama’s political strategy!
You and your earth mind think that 2 + 2 = 4, when it fact, 2 + 2 = Thursday.
*BAM* That was your mind exploding. You’re welcome. I just saved you from the pain of your existence.
Bill E Pilgrim
Who a business decides to do business with is their own business.
I saw an interesting white paper about this the other day.
Wait, do I mean white paper? What’s that called… white sheet. That was it.
Martian Buddy
Every once in a while, someone at Reason [sic.] Magazine writes something that actually does sound reasonable — generally regarding the murderous folly of the drug war. Whenever that happens, I’m always grateful for pieces like this one that make their shameless dishonesty and gibbering insanity readily apparent. Who would have thought that there were people still willing to publically defend segregated businesses in 2010?
srv
“Abortion is a moral right”
– Ayn Rand
Make a sign and take that to your next teabag party.
jl
@BombIranForChrist: Good point. Probably, I am just not smart enough to be libertarian, is all.
The libertarian link about Helen Thomas argued towards the end that Reason had the appropriate policy to control political bias in its writers because it forced them to reveal information about how they voted.
I assumed that meant that reader could evaluate a writer’s work and use info on the writer’s political views to help evaluate whether the work was objective.
But then the piece said that if other media did this we would be disgusted at their writers’ political bias. Why? Because we could see that they did not vote like Reason writers, and that proved they were biased, or what? Seemed like a totally different argument based on different reasoning. Then the piece degenerated into an undisciplined rant and I gave up.
But, problem is that my poor little unproductive drone social parasite brain just aint work fast enough.
Bill E Pilgrim
@BombIranForChrist:
Thursday is obviously when libertarians play golf.
aimai
“Blessed with Owning a Vagina?” Is this part of a new religion? I am very interested in your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your magazine.
aimai
HumboldtBlue
That’s it right there. They want to be able to dictate who can patronize their business, which, believe it or not they are free to do. What they miss is Bull Connor and his Cracker brigade busting black heads when they stand up for basic human dignity and rights.
You, as a business owner have the right to refuse service to anyone, what they know deep down is that an out-and-out racist establishment would wither and die within weeks, therefore desegregation is bad.
soonergrunt
@stuckinred: Nope. For some reason, the company decided to not pick up my option. God knows I’d have jumped at the chance.
Their loss.
MBSS
absolute property rights over This comment. no encroaching or i will bring the full force of the law down upon you. above my comment and below my comment i would respectfully ask for no:
blacks
jews
pirates
references to jellybeans
mayonnaise
thank you for shopping mbss
Roger Moore
@Mnemosyne:
I don’t know about that. There are many businesses, especially professional services, that would be able to discriminate without resorting to physical force to keep undesirables out. A landlord, for instance, could refuse to rent to the “wrong kind of person” very easily. Any businesses that needed to physically force people out could always hire private security guards to do it for them so they wouldn’t need the police.
Brian J
@Lev:
That, or, more likely, they live in some fantasy land where things really will work themselves out and the market will provide enough opportunity for both sides to be okay. A lot of people–not you, but others–are quick to jump on the idea that pure racism is the cause of these beliefs. In some cases, that’s surely true, but in most cases, I’d say it’s the naive belief that the assumptions they build into mental models resemble reality.
The number of otherwise smart people who believe this crap is incredible.
Brian J
@soonergrunt:
I’m once again doing to ask how what’s probably the most famous Libertarian/right-leaning economics department in the country, aside from Chicago, can be housed at George Mason, which is a state school. It’s like PETA holding meetings in a steak house.
WereBear
It simply ties in with the Conservative obsession with being told what to do. They could never rebel as children, they still can’t as adults, but in the meantime they are Germans clinging to the Autobahn’s lack of speed limits.
Ruckus
Cole
..particularly if the individual in question is blessed with owning a vagina.
Not to throw too much sand where it shouldn’t be..
Isn’t the point that owning or trying to own a vagina is not the same as being born with one?
Luthe
@BombIranForChrist:
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Mark S.
@Rick Taylor:
Sorry to disappoint you:
To be fair, Rand has said he’s not a libertarian. He’s just a conservative Republican who thinks private businesses should be free to discriminate, which makes him a lot worse than most conservative Republicans.
Ruckus
@Luthe:
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Thanks. For some reason I needed that. You don’t owe me a keyboard but it was close.
Mojotron
Rand Paul, why do you support the government forcing women to do business with foetuses?
jl
@Mark S.:
“underground electric fence”?
What is that and what would it do?
Zap people as they walked over it, or alert the quick response border patrol helicopters he wants?
El Sarcastico
I believe that should be
But enough about vaginas. let’s talk about pricks. Oh, wait, that brings back to Rand and the writers at Reason.
Never mind.
Anne Laurie
Can’t believe nobody has linked this yet… (Warning: NSFW or Andrew Sullivan)…
El Sarcastico
@jl: It would zap the illegals sneaking into the country through tunnels. SATSQ.
Martian Buddy
I’m surprised he didn’t go all-in and advocate land mines. (Yes, I have heard this as a serious proposal from wingnutty acquaintances before — which means it probably came from some talk radio jackass.)
Redshirt
Libertopia is a wonderful place to live – you’re only responsible for the things you want to be responsible for, at your whim, and everything else can be “Reasoned” away by applying standard Libertarian principles – poisoned by bad food? Should have read the label, or hired a poison taster (as you can see, the economy will boom in Libertopia, since you will have to pay for everything).
Anne Laurie
Hey, it worked to keep Paul’s dog in the yard, and the homeowners’ association could not have been more complimentary…
El Sarcastico
@El Sarcastico: The linked comment was placed in moderation. Say the offending word and the duck will come down and give you a hundred dollars. (Anyone here old enough to identify that?)
El Sarcastico
@El Sarcastico: OK, maybe it’s my secret identity. Sheesh.
Svensker
He also seems to have slunk (is that a word? slinked?) away from his libertarian roots when it comes to not being a fucking warmonger. I’ve got to give his dad credit for staying true on that, no matter what. Rand has learned to love blowin’ up furriners if it gets the vote.
jacy
@jl:
It’s to keep out the Mole People. You must be way out the libertarian conspiracy loop.
Svensker
@Brian J:
Yes. Speaking as a former one of them. It was like being a communist — you just had to wait for the perfect state to come into being, filled with perfect citizens, then finally you would have a true libertarian (or communist) state! Huzzah! Cuz all the real states and citizens were too screwed up to do it right. It took the longest time for it to occur to me that maybe this ideal had no basis in reality and wasn’t even a very good ideal, at least for humans.
Ken
I think Paul practices Selective Libertarianism.
shortstop
Sure, it’s unfortunate that some black people won’t be able to get jobs and some gay people won’t be able to rent apartments and so forth, but that kind of minor collateral damage is just the price of freedom. It’s just a coincidence that self-described libertarians are never the ones who will actually have to pay any price under their definition of freedom.
soonergrunt
@Brian J: It’s called self-interested hypocrisy.
Mike G
@R@Rick Taylor: ick Taylor:
I’ve heard libertarians claim with a straight face that a ban on abortion is a libertarian position – because “the fetus has rights” — too bad about the mother’s rights, I guess. The same with the death penalty, because the victim’s rights must be respected by killing the violator of rights or somesuch. Most libertarians of my acquaintance seem to like big-fist law and order, with convenient exceptions for stuff they like to do.
It’s a pretzel-like ‘philosophy’ that can be bent to justify big-government authoritarianism whenever it’s something the proponent likes — less a political principle than a political tactic.
Mnemosyne
@Ruckus:
I’m pretty sure that being born with a vagina makes me the automatic owner of it. Someone else trying to own it would be like someone else claiming ownership of my foot, though at least people would recognize how bizarre it would be for someone to try and tell me that the government knows better than I do whether or not I want a pedicure.
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne:
Being born with it of course makes you own it.
My point was someone trying to control the use and health of it is trying to own it. Or thinks they should.
No one can/should own slaves, but some used to.
No one can/should own your vagina (entire reproductive system) but some sure are trying to. Or at least trying to keep you from owning it. And they sure used to do that as well.
Rand is just one of those assholes.
Their need is to either control everything (conservatives) or nothing (libertarians). Either way some suffer greatly and those that don’t suffer are supposed to feel superior. They play a zero sum game of life. The pie can never get bigger so if they want a bigger piece they have to take it from someone.
It’s immaturity at it’s worst.
Ruckus
@Anne Laurie:
Wanda is always good for what ever ails you. Laughter is the best medicine and all that.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Ken:
The proper term is: cafeteria libertarian. It means you get to pick and choose which issues to get all liberarian-y about and you only have to go Galt on Christmas and Easter.
Calouste
@beltane:
“Libertarian society” is a contradictio in terminis.
Joey Maloney
@beltane: Robinson Crusoe, before he met Friday.
Just like true communism has a population upper bound of a few hundred before inefficiencies and free-riding overwhelm its mechanisms, for libertarianism that upper bound is, I’m pretty sure, one.
Panurge
@Redshirt:
“Should have read the label”? Exactly why is the ingredients list on the label, hmm??? ;-P
@WereBear:
Well, most people have a problem with people “telling them what to do”–at least I hope so. The issue here is that (1) putting forth a set of rules that businesses must follow in dealing with the public is conflated with a puritannical “nanny state” micromanaging individuals’ lives, and (2) “business owners” are conflated with national and multinational corporations. Notice how, in the present discussion, we’re discussing “business owners” as if every business in the country was a small business owned by a sole proprietor (presumably white and probably male).
gwangung
Hm. What always gets me is that if it’s a large corporation that’s in a suit, they have an inherent advantage against discrete individuals. More time. More money. More resources. And they have specialists for any aspect that you want to fight them on, that are always going to be better than you are.
Why is that a fair and desired state of being for libertarians? The only way to even the odds is to get another collective on the side of the individual, like a government or a union…and those are not very popular solutions to them.
Comrade Tudor
can we just start a new acronym with WWYEFAR? or, what would you expect from a racist? I think it will catch on like IOKIFYAR.