What Rand Paul Really Believes
The libertarian view of the government’s safety net, worker and environmental protections and gun rights
But hiding out and keeping quiet scarcely befits the
leader of a movement of would-be revolutionaries—which means that, sooner or
later, Dr. Paul will have to speak up again. Even if he has settled the civil
rights controversy for the moment, he still has some explaining to do.
As a lifelong libertarian who seems stuck on a
strict standard of ideological purity, he may or may not espouse that creed's
most extreme positions, like his father, Rep. Ron Paul. If he does, then even
many Republicans may think twice or three times before they vote for him. If he
doesn't, then he may find himself in a quarrel with many of his old comrades,
his father and his own past statements. More than once, Rand
has said that he generally agrees with Ron.
So considering Paul's background, extremism is a
reasonable concern—and the only way to find out what he really believes is for
him to start answering a lot of questions.
At the Mercy of Fate, Corporations and
Economic Cycles
What do libertarians believe? On some issues, such
as abortion, they are divided. But on gun control, for instance, the
libertarian platform indicates that they believe in no restrictions whatsoever
on gun ownership, no registrations or background checks—in short, no statutory
or regulatory effort to prevent convicted criminals, registered sex offenders,
suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants or anyone else from getting their
hands on firearms, including anything from a 9mm to a missile launcher.
Some Americans may not consider such absolutism to
be loony, but very few would favor abolishing all background checks or all of
the existing restrictions on automatic weapons.
What voters in Kentucky and elsewhere will learn, when they
look more deeply into the movement from which Paul emerged, is that
libertarians believe in very little government. They seem to feel that the kind
of state suited to the 18th century would serve America just as well today. So they
would do away with all legal restrictions on wages, hours and working
conditions, including the minimum wage and the ban on child labor. If your boss
refused to pay you at the end of the week, the government would do nothing—and
you would have to sue.
Under a libertarian regime, every protection that
modern Americans take for granted would disappear, leaving us to the mercy of
fate, corporations and economic cycles.
No more laws stopping air and water pollution, no
more regulation of food and agricultural safety, no controls on advertising
cigarettes or alcohol to children. (The libertarian society would be paradise
for E. coli bacteria, the oil industry and Joe Camel.) No more Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public schools, national or state parks, or
farm subsidies of any kind; no more federal support for scientific research
into clean energy or curing cancer or AIDS or any other disease; and, in fact,
no more federal money for education at any level, from Head Start to state
colleges, universities and graduate schools.
Is this the "message" Paul is bringing us
from the great minds of the tea party? Maybe so, if they mean what they say
about balancing the budget without raising taxes. But for Paul, there is at
least one exception to the hard-core dogma. You see, he is against cutting
Medicare payments to physicians—at least while he's still practicing
ophthalmology. He should explain that, too.
2010 Creators.com
Let the media flogging begin! Congratulations, Joe- once again you adopt the Glenn Beck model. While I'm not a huge fan of the Paul wing of American politics, I do recognize that Obama is no more a socialist who wants to destroy the American way of life than Rand Paul is a libertarian who wants to shut down road crews and police stations. With this "article" you are as bad as Beck, and the Shepherd should be ashamed to publish this tripe. I am a pragmatic libertarian- I understand that some socialized services are necessary. Like Rand Paul, I simply want to limit those services to what we, as a city, county, state, and country, can afford.
Dave, Dave, Dave. 1.) How does anything that Conason editorialized stray from the basic tenets of Libertarianism? 2.) The thing with Glen Beck is that he's crazy and he makes wild, baseless assumptions; Obama is a racist, America is Socialst, etc. Joel Conason was listing ideals that spring directly from Libertarianism. 3.) Interesting that you rank yourself among Libertarians and yet also promote the idea of city, state, country. These are ideas that Libertarians have been fighting to diminish in favor of the individual.
I think the most important aspect of the Tea Party movement and the reason why it is so successful is the promotion and promise of fiscal responsibility. This is something that republicans, libertarians, and independents agree upon and will be the deciding factor for the coming elections. Clearly, frightened liberals realize this and are trying to use scare tactics in hope of swaying the independent vote. I just don't think its going to work this round.
Not true, Sacks. For instance, Wisconsin Tea Partiers came out in full support of Tommy Thompson, one of if not the most fiscally irresponsible governors in the history of the state of Wisconsin. It's got nothing to do with politics. The Tea Party is all ideology.
And "liberals realize this and are trying to use scare tactics in hope of swaying the independent vote?" Really? Really? I mean, really? Liberals weren't the ones barging into town hall meetings to proclaim Obama as a Socialist. Liberals aren't the folks outside of Planned Parenthood clinics damning people to Hell. Liberals aren't the ones who carry the Confederate Flag to Klan rallies promising to carry out a war against Obama and the government. The scare tactics are coming from Right Wing extrememist groups; like Neo-Nazis, Fascists, Tea Partiers and Conservatives. Everyone knows this, Sacks. Who do you think you're fooling?
Meepos, after having read "What Populist Uprising?" on MRZine and watching Al Jazeera's report on People & Power "White Power USA".
The Tea Party is a political vehicle used by the republican party and the media clubbing us with it's myth. However proto-fascist it may be, it's driven by politics. I think ideology is but one small component being hijacked by the white supremacist nazi group known as the NSM.
Politics exist out of social-relations that create class division. Within the capitalist framework, everything is political and nothing should be assumed coincidental.
As Marx puts it:
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing is legal terms—with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Thus begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks of himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions in material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production.” [4]
URL: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/le2-all.shtml
My bad, highlighter buggy, here's the extract:
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."
So what's Tim Wise, the most prominent anti-racist writer and activists in the U.S. say about Paul Rand, the Libertarians and their ilk?
"While many have expressed outrage at Paul and Stossel’s remarks, that anyone would find them surprising suggests how little most understand the morally obtuse theory that is libertarianism. Fact is, this is how market-worshippers think. To their way of understanding the world, unfettered capitalism can resolve all moral dilemmas because, after a while, those engaging in destructive activities will be made to pay for their transgressions. This is because consumers will eventually cease indulging the capitalists’ taste for the destructive activity. When consumers withhold their money from capitalists, as a way to vent their outrage over the given evil–be it discrimination, pollution, exploitation of child labor, or whatever else–the capitalist will change his or her ways because it has ceased to be profitable to do otherwise. Additionally, when it comes to discrimination, racist or sexist employers will eventually come to recognize their error, because less biased competitors who are willing to hire persons of color (or women of all colors) who might be better qualified, will reap profits that were sacrificed by the discriminating employer. Eventually, lessons learned, employers will stop discriminating even if they don’t much like blacks, or Latinos, or whomever, because however much they may hate racial, gender or sexual “others,” they love money more. And according to libertarians, everyone operates on the basis of material self-interest."
"And here’s the really important visual to consider: to suggest that those property owners were right to say they “shouldn’t have to serve” blacks, and that their property rights were more important than the right of all people to be treated like human beings, is to side with the white thugs who surrounded those brave young men and women–black and white–who had sat down on lunch counter stools and refused to move. It is to side with the mob as they screamed hateful epithets in the direction of Diane Nash (whose name I’d bet Rand Paul has never even heard, let alone her story), and John Lewis, and Bernard Lafayette, and Paul La Prad, in Nashville, among others. It is to say that those racist goons were on the right side, philosophically at least. That they were the ones with a better understanding of what America was supposed to be about, rather than those dignified and courageous souls whom they attacked. That they were the patriots who truly loved their country and had a deep appreciation for the Constitution. It is to side with the cops as they dragged peaceful demonstrators from lunch counters, because after all, the latter were trespassing on “private property.”
Video: Tim Wise on White Privilege
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UJlNRODZHA
"they believe in no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership, no registrations or background checks — in short, no statutory or regulatory effort to prevent convicted criminals, registered sex offenders, suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants or anyone else from getting their hands on firearms"
.
.
Which of the thousands of gun-related regulations now in place stop criminals from getting guns?
None.
If someone wants a gun, they can get one.
.
Criminals don't follow laws. That's why they're criminals.
If they're willing to ignore laws about murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc., why do you think they'll pay attention to a law that says they're not allowed to have a gun?
.
The only people affected by laws are law-abiding citizens.
The only people disarmed by gun-related laws are citizens who are the prey of criminals.
Why is that so hard to understand?
.
The government needs to gets its paws off the rights of citizens. What other rights do we allow the government to control? Would you put up with getting a permit, and having a waiting period, to go to church? To publish a blog? To meet friends for coffee?
It's the socio-economic relations that produce most criminals, let's get that straight. This is the free-market capitalist model to produce growth, measured by GDP.
Q. Which of the thousands of gun-related regulations now in place stop criminals from getting guns?
None of them, because all criminals holding the guns also hold all the power. I know what you're thinking. Never mind the criminals dressed in uniforms, slaughtering Iraqi's by the million, Afghani's, Pakistani, ad infinitum. Never mind the 8,000 tons of Opium coming out of Afghanistan. Never mind the 600 tons of cocaine coming out of US controlled Colombia. Never mind the nearly $1 trillion dollars of drug money laundered thru BCCI or CITI. Never mind the $23.7 trillion bank bailout. Never mind the US is the largest weapons exporter. Never mind the prison/military industrial complexes. Never mind corporate welfare. Never mind the State is the biggest dead beat daddy. Never mind the cops that harass, terrorize and slaughter the Sean Bell's, Oscar Grants, or Aiyana Jones'. In fact, just forget about all the criminal behavior of both State and the Capitalist class. Right?
What's your position on these issues? If your not defending the working class, then what are you? Why would expect anybody to rally around a capitalist product for your consumption? What feeds this type of consumption? Be they a paranoid schizophrenic fear or the desperation of poverty?
If you and they are willing to ignore illegal imperial wars, crimes against humanity, winter soldier testimonies of rape, torture, murder, with all the sins attributed to capital. Who exactly are you trying to get to rally around you, more psychopaths preserving the criminal capitalist state?
Q. If someone wants a gun, they can get one.
Of coarse they can, that's how capitalism works silly. More importantly, it's the supply that creates the demand. Don't let no fool tell you otherwise. What's also important to consider is who controls the points of production and distributions. Is it the working class or the capitalist class? Another factor important for production is to simply why? Does production benefit the betterment of the collective of the human species? In short, this is a capitalist class monopoly on violence and death of which the working class has no interest. Comprenda?
A. The only people affected by laws are law-abiding citizens.
Your right! 'The Transformation of American Law' by Morton J. Horwitz points this out. As the late grand theorist put it, "It's a rigged game folks" George Carlin ~ The American Dream.
The error in your logic is to only point out the petty criminal, leaving a huge tactical and strategic space aside for the larger one that preys upon you as equally as the petty criminal. Do you see the error? You aim to low which makes your words completely irrelevant and impotent. Instead you should focus on the power structure, that actually creates the laws and the capitalist class that owns the whole damn thing!
Yes, governments have done some pretty bad things. I want to prevent one more - losing a basic human right, self-preservation. Since the government cannot protect citizens, and in fact is not legally required to, it is up to us to protect ourselves and government should get out of our way.
It's like a workplace that says it has a no weapons policy. What they really mean is no legally-carried self-defense tools. A criminal with a weapon will come in and rob or kill despite their policy. Happens at schools across the country.
If a place insists on disarming people, that place assumes the responsibility for protecting them as they could have protected themselves, had they not been disarmed. Quite a liability.
If anyone can come up with a way to prevent criminals from getting weapons that does not restrict the rights of citizens, I'll be all for it. That hasn't happened yet, despite decades and thousands of laws.
What do a bunch of lazy, inferior, and intellectually dishonest leftists know about the Tea Party movement anyways? Nothing. When an annoying woman like Meepos is lecturing you about the ins and out of the tea party, conservatives, and/or libertarianism all you can do is laugh.
It's not a movement. It's a shell front for the republican party (see MRZine "What Populist Uprising?"), that's proto-fascist, and getting hijacked by the white supremacist NSM. Embrace your fascist tendencies corrina.
When a tired, old hermit like corrina gets a hold of "the Google," this is what happens. Corrina, shuffle away from the computer and take a nap. Or go dinner. It's 1:45, should be just about time for you. If they let you out of the nursing home. By the way, at least I lecture. You've done nothing but annoy. You're such an easy target, Corrina. Toodles? What in the world?
Hey Karl Marx, you must be a black muslim. I envision you agreeing with Farrakhan alot. Toodles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF2jcGbYbQok