"What about freedom of speech?" asked the less than candid Candidate. "Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other?'" Paul replied. "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion."Unfortunately, more than just being grammatically confused, he's wrong. He's equivocating and the debate is, of course, entirely about practical matters. Can we agree, for instance, that being black in a restaurant is fundamentally different than carrying a gun in a bar and if so, his analogy is defective and a fallacy of distraction? Certainly a speed limit is not Government ownership of my car, health regulations imposed on food producers aren't the equivalent of owning the family farm nor is forcing Woolworth to stop creating two Americas with their policies isn't Marxism.
Is the government of and by the people allowed,as the founding documents imply, to promote liberty for all, to promote peace and domestic tranquility by imposing limitations on individual behavior? Is he arguing for a government so impotent it must inevitably fall into feudalism and exploitation? Those are the questions he begs and the questions he avoids. Sorry Doctor, I think the balance between individual liberty and being a free country is a practical and necessary discussion.
Is it practical to have a society so far beyond the control of its members that justice becomes only a matter of the will of the strongest and the richest and most well connected -- the will of the WASP? No, unlimited individual license does not allow for a society at all, much less a free one.
Still it's all about the practical as opposed to the relentlessly repeated and self referential principle and we've all heard of or can easily come up with examples where freedom cannot be unlimited for many reasons; where behavior that needs to be restrained cannot be restrained by anyone other than Government. Is it preferable to allow my neighbors to forbid Baptists to live on my block and ignore my freedom or is it better to protect the minority against the majority, which is a common definition of democracy as distinguished from mob rule. No, if this is but a "philosophical" discussion it's because he doesn't want to address the inevitable questions Libertarians invite when they refuse to discuss its inherent limitations.
The traditional 'best government is least government' trope reduces to absurdity all by itself as quickly as does his argument that any restraints or obligations put on behavior or business practices constitute ownership and are an unnecessary stain on the pure and absolute freedom we've somehow decided is our birthright. Certainly although he assures us that he would never patronize a business that discriminates, he realizes that his sentiments are not universal. He realizes that he's giving license to anyone to debase any group he likes and to diminish their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. He realizes that such a nation as he dreams of would be fractured, Balkanized, a loose, weak, unstable confederation of hostile groups no more pleasant than a baboon troupe and with each of us at his neighbor's throat. He must realize that he's appealing to bigots, racists and sociopaths of no conscience -- and all in the name of principle and freedom.
So why is he debating as though the balance between too much and not enough wasn't worth discussing? As though that wasn't the real question? Perhaps its because he's pandering to an audience somewhat less rational than Ron Paul's: to an audience whipped into irrational fury by the basic requirements of civilization; too hungry for revenge against a maturing world and too angry and self centered to give a damn what he can do for his country.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post -- aside from what I say in my own comments on the subject, I'll add the following in response.
I like the last paragraph very much -- the part about how the 'baggery are "whipped into an irrational fury by the basic requirements of civilization." That's about the best description I've ever heard of those savagely selfish, onion-breathed dolts. T.S. Eliot wrote in one of his critical essays that (paraphrase) "only those who actually have a personality know what it is to try to escape from it," and that's exactly how I feel about the 'baggers: what business have they being so firmly centered upon themselves when the selves upon which they center are so primitive, so ignorant, so vile, and so worthless? They should want to escape from such a "me" into even the most Borg-like collectivity of a "not me." Why, it would be infinitely many steps up even to that, for them.
As for the more rational libertarians, our posts were similar on the issue of abstractions versus real-world consequences. I would only suggest that it's always surprising just how naive the holders of such a philosophy can be. We are dealing here with what Bacon would have called an "Idol of the Theatre"; that is, a powerful, seductive myth or interlocking set of falsities constituted by a philosophical system, a system for representing "the way things are and ought to be."
Some anecdotal evidence: I noticed during the 2008 campaign that the presidential gambit of Rand Paul's father Ron seemed to be generating a lot of enthusiasm amongst bright-eyed young fellows in particular. I think the seductive appeal of Ron Paul's ideas for these young men must have been that they felt they were being offered a chance truly to be the captain of their own ship -- it's attractive when you're just starting out in life to be given a shimmering vision of absolute personal autonomy and sky's-the-limit Horatio Alger-style getting of riches by your own strong efforts. They believed all this, I'm sure, in good faith and without any ill intentions towards others. Probably so do the older "true believers," though I would certainly agree that they have far less excuse than young whippersnappers just shoring up their courage against an underlying fear of failure and the big world out there.
Captain, not meaning to be off topic, but I decided to go forward with regards to the thugs dispatched to my door by Florida's Attorney General and Republican candidate for governor, Bill McCollum.
ReplyDeleteIf the goons show up at my door again, they will be met with reporters from the Orlando Sentinel and the News Journal, including my lawyer.
I will start writing my post on the subject tonight.
Captain, you and Dino must have coordinated this two pronged take-down of Mr. Paul -- your sequence of posts has a nice flow to it.
ReplyDeleteI just watched that interview on-line -- what a doozy. Paul has shown his true, and not at all pretty, libertarian colors.
Makes me wonder about the upbringing of Paul and other libertarians -- have they not been part of a caring human family? What is responsible for creating such a peculiar outlook on life?
And, Octo, can't wait to read your post.
Thanks to Octo and Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteElizabeth -- these libertarian blokes somewhat remind me of Dickens characters like the well-meaning but wrongheaded schoolmaster Mr. Gradgrind in Hard Times -- if memory serves, he or one of his assistants insists that their poor student Sissy Jupe define a horse not in relation to Pegasus but rather as "a graminivorous quadruped." Dickens, like Thomas Carlyle, was a master at portraying people living in the grip of a powerful abstraction to the point where they become caricatures scripted by their own crazy ideas.
Thanks BD. I actually posted this without having bothered to see what was already up and I'm glad if you don't feel I stepped on your - um - toes.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of Freud's Civilization and it's Discontents or Das Unbehagen in der Kultur if you prefer, although it's been nearly 50 years since I read it last. American's, the folks who never want to grow up are chafing under its demands like little kids who think they can run away from home and live the way they want to and eat ice cream and stay up all night. Some of them are just plain sorry for themselves and think the world owes them more than they have and they certainly don't owe their countrymen a damned thing.
But it's too big a syndrome to describe it all. I can't dismiss it all however. I do agree with Paul Sr. about our stupid drug policies, our stupid wars and that maybe there should be some auditing going on but I parted company with him over some old statements about those "lazy black people" and welfare being a burden on us better citizens. Not quite presidential, what?
Interesting about Bacon, but if I recall, he cherished a bit of a seductive myth of his own about the nastiness of Jews - of course so did Eliot for that matter. Humans are really only barely, ah, human. I should have been a pair of ragged claws, you know.
Whatever Rando shares with the upbringing of other Americans, there's a lot of sentiment these days that compassion is the road to Communism and social justice has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
Paul replied. "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion."
ReplyDeleteNo, Mr. Rand Paul, the government doesn't OWN the owner's restaurant, but the government has the right to tell the owner of the restaurant that he/she cannot place an American citizen in second class citizenship. The DoI, which your kind so worships does say that our unalienable rights are based on the premise that "all men/women are created equal."
When two "rights" are in conflict--the right of the business owner to control who does business with him/her, and the right of American citizens to be treated equally--it is not difficult to understand in a society that believes "all men are created equal" whom the government will support.
HINT: It isn't the racist business owner.
I'm just about done with this fucking country if it supports a Rand Paul.
We have as much to learn about this guy from his frantic attempts today to back away from what he obviously really believes.
ReplyDeleteJust one more Republican politician, willing to tell anyone what he thinks they want to hear to get elected.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteAs a huge fan of Dickens, I think if I were going to compare these guys to a Dickensian character, it would be Seth Pecksniff.
Yes, Mr. Pecksniff would would be a good candidate.
ReplyDeleteAnother way of putting what Rand Paul and many of his fellow libertarians miss is that while you can't legislate stupidity and bigotry out of a person, you CAN legislate in a manner that requires such a person to behave like a tolerable approximation of a human being. With regard to the Walgreen's Counter example that got Rand Paul into hot water, and to borrow an idea from a very old framework -- medieval European feudal doctrine -- being a merchant is an "office," a calling of sorts with requisite duties proper to it. Merchants supply people with things -- that's their calling, their office, for as long as they choose to engage in it. Restricting who you will or won't supply purely on the basis of something like skin color is, in our modern terms, both unprofessional and inhumane. Such a merchant is a disgrace to all merchants, and there's no reason to suggest that society shouldn't legislate against such a disgraceful state of affairs.
But of course the libertarian view is that there is not and should not be any connection between one human and another except for the "cash nexus," so they would accept no such obligation borrowed from a modified collectivist social framework. Their philosophy is the efflux of the early capitalist production that, as Marx pointed out, shattered the old feudal ways of doing and thinking. Well, we don't want to bring feudalism back, don't get me wrong, but I'm suggesting that many libertarians are so foolhardy that if you let them, they would quickly render the capitalist order unsustainable precisely because THEY BELIEVE IN IT SO DEEPLY.
By the way, in that last comment I meant Woolworth's, of course, not Walgreens!
ReplyDeleteI think Rand yearns the good old days when Lester Madox was serving up them tasty meals at the Pickrick.
ReplyDeleteLook. Paul is either:
a.) A bigot
b.) So craven he won't work against just about the most basic form of injustice this country has to offer.
How far does this personal liberty thingy go? What about pedophiles? If one molests a child in one's own store, is that a matter of personal freedom? Who owns the business, the individual or the government? Okay, maybe pedophilia is too extreme an example, after all, it is illegal. Maybe I'll send my question to Mr. Paul. I really need an answer.
ReplyDelete"Look. Paul is either:
ReplyDeletea.) A bigot
b.) So craven he won't work against just about the most basic form of injustice this country has to offer."
Or both. But be careful, justice is for individuals only. Justice for two or more people puts us on that slippery slope toward "Commonism." Beckbaugh says we should quit any church that talks of social justice, because Christianity is about me, not about you sinners and doesn't "social" sound like Social-ism?
Americans are just too damned stupid to avoid this kind of fly paper.
"How far does this personal liberty thingy go?"
The oft stated promise of our country is that my liberty ends where yours begins. The demand of Rand is that there is no real limit because I'm "special." Unfortunately when you get 300 million Special people civilization ends and the dogfight begins.
Ayn Rand -- the government took away my wealth (which I deserve because its mine) so all government is bad. Jesus you'd think she was three years old, but then there's a baby born every second, isn't there, and in America they stay that way.
By golly, I say the Democrats should keep the focus on any and all Rands -- why, just now there's this: Rand Paul says Obama sounds un-American for blaming BP.
ReplyDeleteThe man's timing is just impeccable! If I could order up an agent working for the Democratic Party to destroy the Republicans' chances of picking up seats later this year, I couldn't make one any better than Paul the Younger.
You're right Captain. Not necessarily either/or. Could be both.
ReplyDeleteIt's that horrible weakness I have of giving others the benefit of the doubt. The proverbial 'walk a mile in my shoes..' Etc.
I'd make a lousy libertarian/consevative.