So Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act and segregation got him in a bit of a pickle.
The most pathetic thing about this is when Rand Paul supporters use the word “smear” to describe Rachel Maddow politely asking Rand Paul to answer a yes or no question. I guess it’s irresponsible for a reporter to not take a politician’s evasive responses at face value.
Regarding segregation on private property:
No, you don’t get to actively help build a system in which some people are given the status of “inferior,” and thus in reality help subject them to violence and coercion, and be immune from the consequences when you’re on your property like you’ve reached home base or something. When property is used to further a wholesale violation of liberty, then liberty comes first.
For examples of how desegregation could be, and largely was being accomplished without government action, see Rad Geek’s comments on direct action.
Rand Paul made a clear statement against racial segregation, but showed hesitance to use government force to prevent it. So apparently he thinks private property is important enough that he has problems using the government to desegregate it, but doesn’t think it’s important enough to stop the government from confiscating income by threat of force to finance war machines (CHT Roderick Long).
In blogosphere douchebaggery, there’s Why Libertarians are a Danger to the Economy by Ben Cohen.
The debate between Libertarians and the economic Left should have ended after the spectacular collapse of the deregulated financial sector. Not only did deregulation cause the crash, but government interference into the market prevented it from getting much, much worse.
So the lack of government regulation is obviously to blame. Would that implicate the free market in which government acts to raise living expenses and boost real-estate and banking profits, the free market in which $663.8 billion dollars are spent (officially) to secure and project the power of the United States government, the free market in which banking and corporate giants give politicians money in return for favors, or some other free market I’ve missed?
But hey, if the economy’s running well for bureaucrats and corporate managers, then it must be good for everyone, am I right? Progressives sit on the left side of the bosses’ table!
What clinches this essay for the douchebag-wing of liberalism isn’t Cohen assuming the store owner would be a liberal, but his boasting that “of course I didn’t” visit any of the websites suggested by the man who was “so absolutely certain of his own position, and so well armed with his own set of facts that there was no point in discussing it with him at all.”
Responding to Cohen’s post, Eric Dondero, in addition to his typical semiliterate tantrum throwing, lies by saying “We libertarians”. “Libertarian” means supporting individual liberty and minimizing authority. A person who is so enamored of the power of the most extensive empire in the history of the world that he has trouble separating sex from macho flag-waving is not a libertarian.
And fuck Mark Zuckerberg too.