Friday, May 21, 2010

best post on Rand Paul that I've seen

from Alexander Cockburn: The Rand and Rachel Show: "That Maddow-Paul set-to on MSNBC was tragic-comic. As CounterPunch co-editor Jeffrey St Clair remarked, “Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs & aid to Israel. But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 -- SIXTY-FOUR. It's like a Dadaist play.”"


  1. Rand Paul's notion that government's reach shouldn't extend inside the doors of a privately-owned business is so out of touch with reality that I'm amazed anyone takes him seriously. The law shouldn't compel business owners to serve people they disapprove of? The law shouldn't compel business owners to forbid people to go armed in their establishments? Well, all right, maybe some people would say that's not going too far. Hmm. How about, the law shouldn't compel business owners to collect sales tax? Okay, there are plenty of Libertarians who'd agree with that.

    But law does extend into private business--even into private homes. Murder is illegal, yes, even in your house. Rape is illegal in your bedroom. Selling child pornography from your home computer is illegal. The law extends into private spaces. The precedent is vast. Paul's gun-control boogeyman is a transparent piece of button-pushing.

  2. I'm pretty sure he would agree with you that what's consensual and what's private are not the same.

  3. Update for anyone reading this: Emma and I just had a half-hour discussion about Rand Paul and Libertarians. Sorry I can't do a recap! I think where we left it is that to understand Libertarians, you have to understand their initial assumption that everything is money, and the restrictions on the rights of money should be as minimal as possible.