Does Rand Paul's win spell trouble for the Republican Party?

[youngterrier]

A Libertarian society is only as good as its people

[JohnStOnge]

One of the big failings of Libertarians is that they think the world is an utopia. Free Market/enterprise did not eliminate discrimination. Only the Government (and Federal at that) has the ability to do that, in the REAL world.

I think that reflects a complete misunderstanding of the Libertarian outlook. Libertarians would not agree with the implied premise that freedom to discriminate...in terms of people making decisions about who they would and would not associate with or engage n commerce with...should have been eliminated. People should be free to decide not to associate with other people or not to engage in commerce with other people. Period.

During those times there were state and local laws that said that restaurant owners, etc., HAD to provide separate facilities based on race. That too was an infringement on liberty and it was fair game. But when the Federal government tells the owner of a private business that he or she MUST do business with people he or she would prefer not to do business with that is flat out wrong. Shouldn't be happening.

[native]

A Libertarian society is only as good as its people

True, but a Libertarian society built on a Constitutional Republic with a robust rule of law sets the high water mark of what might be possible for human society.

The maximum practical potential for every other system pales in comparison. Obama-ism, progrssive-ism, social-ism and commune-ism all fall short.

[Chizzang]

A Libertarian society is only as good as its people

True, but a Libertarian society built on a Constitutional Republic with a robust rule of law sets the high water mark of what might be possible for human society.

The maximum practical potential for every other system pales in comparison. Obama-ism, progrssive-ism, social-ism and commune-ism all fall short.

But doesn't a true Libertarian society abolish the standing military..?

[youngterrier]

A Libertarian society is only as good as its people

True, but a Libertarian society built on a Constitutional Republic with a robust rule of law sets the high water mark of what might be possible for human society.

The maximum practical potential for every other system pales in comparison. Obama-ism, progrssive-ism, social-ism and commune-ism all fall short.

you act as if I was disagreeing with you....

[JohnStOnge]

But doesn't a true Libertarian society abolish the standing military..?

No. I'd say Libertarians support having a military but would reduce its role in the world. Here is the Libertarian Party position from its platform:

"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."

I think there are probably differences in opinion on what is necessary to defend against aggression. In my opnion defending against agression sometimes means taking action against foreign states to attack the aggression at its source or even to pre-empt it. For instance, I would support doing whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and I support doing whatever is necessary to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a haven for Islamists planning attacks against the United States. Other Libertarians might disagree and take a narrower view on what is meant by defending against aggression.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm going to comment further on the "Utopia" thing because it is SO ironic that someone would say that the Libertarian point of view on this matter is Utopian when the truth is that it's those who support such things as the the subject aspect of the Civil Rights Act who are being Utopian. The impetus behind something like the idea that people should be prohibited from opting not to deal with others based on race is an egalitarian world view such that proponents envision a Utopian world in which nobody even notices race and race has no impact on perception. Moreover, in this Utopia, there are no achievment gaps. If somehing like 12% of the population is Black then something close to 12% of doctors are black. There is no significant difference between median income of Blacks and median income of Whites. Black school children score about the same, on average, as White school children do on standardized tests. So on and so forth. Everything is "equal." Utopia.

So they support government taking Liberty away in order to move towards achieving their egalitarian Utopia. In this Utopia government is in the role of a great benevolent Father who makes sure all the children are nice to each other. And it goes beyond that. Daddy makes sure no one goes hungry, goes without shelter, goes without medical care, etc. As necessary, Daddy makes those who have share with those who have not. Shiny happy faces everywhere. The Great Society. The Brave New World. Up with Big Brother.

Libertarians accept that bad things will happen. They accept that if people are free they will sometimes do things other people might think are wrong. They accept that people may go hungry. They accept that maybe some people won't get jobs at particular places because of irrational prejudice. They make no claim that allowing people freedom means all of the world's problems will disappear. Maximum individual Liberty is an objective in itself; not a means of achieving maximum material benefit and/or maximum social justice and/or harmony. They are not looking for Utopia. They are looking for Freedom from government control of their lives and individual decisions.

[kalm]

I'm going to comment further on the "Utopia" thing because it is SO ironic that someone would say that the Libertarian point of view on this matter is Utopian when the truth is that it's those who support such things as the the subject aspect of the Civil Rights Act who are being Utopian. The impetus behind something like the idea that people should be prohibited from opting not to deal with others based on race is an egalitarian world view such that proponents envision a Utopian world in which nobody even notices race and race has no impact on perception. Moreover, in this Utopia, there are no achievment gaps. If somehing like 12% of the population is Black then something close to 12% of doctors are black. There is no significant difference between median income of Blacks and median income of Whites. Black school children score about the same, on average, as White school children do on standardized tests. So on and so forth. Everything is "equal." Utopia.

So they support government taking Liberty away in order to move towards achieving their egalitarian Utopia. In this Utopia government is in the role of a great benevolent Father who makes sure all the children are nice to each other. And it goes beyond that. Daddy makes sure no one goes hungry, goes without shelter, goes without medical care, etc. As necessary, Daddy makes those who have share with those who have not. Shiny happy faces everywhere. The Great Society. The Brave New World. Up with Big Brother.

Libertarians accept that bad things will happen. They accept that if people are free they will sometimes do things other people might think are wrong. They accept that people may go hungry. They accept that maybe some people won't get jobs at particular places because of irrational prejudice. They make no claim that allowing people freedom means all of the world's problems will disappear. Maximum individual Liberty is an objective in itself; not a means of achieving maximum material benefit and/or maximum social justice and/or harmony. They are not looking for Utopia. They are looking for Freedom from government control of their lives and individual decisions.

Just like's it utopic to believe that government can solve all of the problems, it's equally utopic to believe that the free market or rational self interest will create a successful society.

If I sell a pack of smokes, a bottle of Jim Beam, and some porn to your 16 year old son at my store that sits across the street from a church and next door to a school, you might be patient enough to shrug your shoulders and wait for the market to address the issues. But most parents who's kid gets arrested for DUI with one hand down his pants and the other flicking a lit dart out the window are gonna want some laws inacted. Do we lose a little bit of liberty? Sure. But I'm not so sure the republic is going to crumble as a result. It's the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument that places a few limitiations on our rights and it's a perfectly reasonable compromise.

We're really just arguing the degree of government intervention. I would contend that our success as a country has been because of big government and despite big government. Because of both timely government interventions and government limitations. So without sounding too much like my friend Chizzang, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[native]

... We're really just arguing the degree of government intervention. ... So without sounding too much like my friend Chizzang, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Correct! But you are nowhere near the "middle," kalm. You are off the scale to the left.

[kalm]

... We're really just arguing the degree of government intervention. ... So without sounding too much like my friend Chizzang, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Correct! But you are nowhere near the "middle," kalm. You are off the scale to the left.

And from a regulatory standpoint, over the past 30 years our country is off the scales to the right. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush were, economically speaking, all pro-deregulation. It left us with the lost decade of the 2000's. And Obama judging by his actions and his appointmens is thus far reluctant to regulate as well.

[Baldy]

And from a regulatory standpoint, over the past 30 years our country is off the scales to the right. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush were, economically speaking, all pro-deregulation. It left us with the lost decade of the 2000's. And Obama judging by his actions and his appointmens is thus far reluctant to regulate as well.

Ummm regulation is and has always been there...

[youtube][/youtube]

Sweeping the evidence under the rug is the problem.

[native]

Correct! But you are nowhere near the "middle," kalm. You are off the scale to the left.

And from a regulatory standpoint, over the past 30 years our country is off the scales to the right. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush were, economically speaking, all pro-deregulation. It left us with the lost decade of the 2000's. And Obama judging by his actions and his appointmens is thus far reluctant to regulate as well.

The real issues are competence and corruption. More regulation does not solve these problems. The amount of regulation is just a smokescreen to cover for the current demokrat incompetence and corruption.

[kalm]

No question that there's an enforcement issue. But there has also been deregulation like, Graham-Leach-Bliley which was signed into law by Clinton.

And yes Baldy, Freddie and Fannie are certainly problematic and the Dem's fingers appear to be stuck in the pie, but then again the FBI pleaded with the Bush administration to investigate sub-prime lending practices back in 2003 and were ignored.

Like it or not, this ain't a partisan issue. It's a philosophical issue mired in the perversion that an unregulated, free market is beneficial to society.

[Baldy]

No question that there's an enforcement issue. But there has also been deregulation like, Graham-Leach-Bliley which was signed into law by Clinton.

And yes Baldy, Freddie and Fannie are certainly problematic and the Dem's fingers appear to be stuck in the pie, but then again the FBI pleaded with the Bush administration to investigate sub-prime lending practices back in 2003 and were ignored.

Like it or not, this ain't a partisan issue. It's a philosophical issue mired in the perversion that an unregulated, free market is beneficial to society.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe It's the FBI's job to investigate.

[kalm]

No question that there's an enforcement issue. But there has also been deregulation like, Graham-Leach-Bliley which was signed into law by Clinton.

And yes Baldy, Freddie and Fannie are certainly problematic and the Dem's fingers appear to be stuck in the pie, but then again the FBI pleaded with the Bush administration to investigate sub-prime lending practices back in 2003 and were ignored.

Like it or not, this ain't a partisan issue. It's a philosophical issue mired in the perversion that an unregulated, free market is beneficial to society.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe It's the FBI's job to investigate.

Officers had been transferred from the financial fraud division to anti-terrorism. A few were seeing the impending problems with mortgage fraud who requested more officers and were denied.


http://www.seattlepi.com/national/397690_fbiweb28.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/385786_fbi31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe It's the FBI's job to investigate.

Officers had been transferred from the financial fraud division to anti-terrorism. A few were seeing the impending problems with mortgage fraud who requested more officers and were denied.


http://www.seattlepi.com/national/397690_fbiweb28.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/385786_fbi31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A mistake in shifting resources pales in comparison to the willful pervasive corruption between Fannie and Freddie and their enablers in Congress.

[JohnStOnge]

Just like's it utopic to believe that government can solve all of the problems, it's equally utopic to believe that the free market or rational self interest will create a successful society.

If I sell a pack of smokes, a bottle of Jim Beam, and some porn to your 16 year old son at my store that sits across the street from a church and next door to a school, you might be patient enough to shrug your shoulders and wait for the market to address the issues. But most parents who's kid gets arrested for DUI with one hand down his pants and the other flicking a lit dart out the window are gonna want some laws inacted. Do we lose a little bit of liberty? Sure. But I'm not so sure the republic is going to crumble as a result. It's the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument that places a few limitiations on our rights and it's a perfectly reasonable compromise.

I could make a lot of comments about that scenario, including alluding to my opnion that DUI laws are completely over the top right now. But I won't. Instead, I'll say that that the issues involved in that scenario are totally different than the issue of forceing someone to engage in commerce with someone else when they don't want to engage in commerce with.

My wife and I were talking about that very issue tonight with respect to her mother. She's 81 years old. She lives in a house with a small rent house behind it and she needs to find a tenant. She is not free to set her criteria for that tenant because of Daddy government. She should be able to. She should be able to, without fear, specifically advertise with descriptions of what she will and will not accept. But she can't. She should not be forced to rent that rent house to anybody she feels uncomfortable with for any reason. But with things as they are, she could be.

It's absolutely outrageous. And the evolution of our society is in the direction of more and more government control over our lives and decisions and less and less Liberty.

[JohnStOnge]

Just like's it utopic to believe that government can solve all of the problems, it's equally utopic to believe that the free market or rational self interest will create a successful society.

How do you define "successful society?" Was the United States not a "successful society" prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Would allowing people to make their own decisions about who they associate with now mean it wouldn't be a "successful society?"

[OL FU]

Public accomodation was not invented to justify government intrusion, it was to allow citizens to participate fully in marketplace, and therefore in the country governance and success, regardless of color.

Of COURSE it was invented to justify government intrusion. When I'm selling something and government says that I can't freely choose who I sell it to that's government intrusion. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Now, you could argue that it justifies government intrusion because the government intrusion is justified. An ends justify means argument. I would disagree with the idea that government intruding in order to deny people free choice in who they enter into commerce with and/or associate with is justified. But at least we'd agree on the reality of it being government intrusion.

I just really, really disagree with the idea that you, me, or anybody else has the right to force someone else to associate with us or enter into commerce with us. Such laws do not further the cause of liberty; they are substantial attacks upon liberty.

Plus it's yet one more instance in which we made a mockery of the Constitution. No way the Constitution really bestows the power to do that upon the Federal government. I'm guessing they used the commerce clause and said that discriminating based on X or Y has an EFFECT upon interstate commerce therefore Congress's power to regulate commerce between the States comes into play. That's ridiculous. Someone walking into a restaurant to buy a sandwich isn't interstate commerce; and it doesn't become interstate commerce because the materials used to make the sandwich came from other states either. Not really. The whole deal with "interstate commerce" being creatively defined is just an excuse to give the Federal Government powers it wasn't supposed to have.

I will paraphrase George Will on This week (parenthesis added would be mine take)

The civil rights act replaced one right, the right for individuals in the marketplace to discriminate (immoral) with another right, the right for each individual to participate equally in society.(moral).

I still disagree While the federal goverment is intrusive, the purpose of public accomations was not intrusion. It was to provide equal protection. If it was instrusive this is one case where instrusiveness was necessary. The states, including mine, were not providing equal protection through segregation.

I think the civil rights law would not be justified in the constitution through interstate commerce but through equal protection and I think I justified my position very well earlier. I won't go back over it again. Seperate but equal did not work whether in schools or on buses or at lunch counters.

[native]

Excellent debate among the righties and moderates on this site!

[OL FU]

Excellent debate among the righties and moderates on this site!

Interestingly enough I would consider myself a conservative on economic issues. I don't believe for a minute that prohibiting discrimination based on an inherent quality goes against convervative principles.

The argument JSO makes might work(1) for individual buyers and sellers only as opposed to businesses and (2) if racism and discrimination weren't part of the fabric of most groups. The immensity of segregation in this country prior the civil rights act prohibited a large percentage of the citizens of this country from freely and actively participating in government and commerce. As I mentioned before, if the right of the individual to discriminate was the law of the land before the civil rights act, it had to be ended in order to provide equality of opportunity (equal protection if you will) to minorities.


PS, another thing Will said that I found interesting. The civil rights act proved that you can legislate morality. Just look at the attitudes of the vast majority of Americans compared to now and then.

[kalm]

Here's a great rant on Rand Paul and the obvious flaws of libertarianism.

So, by my count, Maddow asks Paul the core question here no fewer than eight times in a row. This is precisely what she should have been doing, and in doing so she provides a huge service to American society. If I were to fault her anywhere, it would be only for not identifying Paul's diversionary tactics for what they were, calling them out, and thereby pushing them off the table. I would have liked to have seen her say, "With respect, sir, we're not talking about that. Or that, or that, or that. We're talking about this."

And she would have needed to do that several times over, because Paul's game here is to shift the discussion to domains where he is more comfortable, and where the problems with his ideology don't show up so readily. Maddow says let's talk about discrimination in privately-held public accommodations, and he says let's talk about my lack of prejudice. She tries again and he wants to discuss governmental discrimination. She repeats the question and he says let's talk about nineteenth century history. She asks once more and he starts talking about censorship and the First Amendment. She tries yet again and he changes the topic to guns, which involves legislating behavior, rather than race, which concerns who you are. She asks still another time and he cries foul, claiming that this is some obscure red herring being used by his opponents for purposes of political assassination.

All of these are diversionary lies, meant to avoid the unpleasant realities of what libertarianism would actually look like in action. But the last lie is the most egregious. The entire reason for Rand Paul's existence right now - which is also almost literally true, given that he has the unfortunate burden of being named for Ayn Rand, a twisted soul if ever there was - is his premise of reclaiming American government in the name of liberty for the American people. That's who he is. That's what he represents himself to be. That's his political shtick, his raison d'être. What the Maddow interview reveals, however, is that he's really just another politician trying to win office, not a crusader at all. And what it also reveals is just how bankrupt are those libertarian notions if you look at them at all closely.

The ideology has some nice bumper-sticker like appeal, especially for the more simplistic among us. I mean, who, after all, could be against more freedom? And, indeed, when it comes to social issues, the libertarians have it exactly right. The government shouldn't be in the business of controlling women's bodies, or telling people what substances they can imbibe, or who they can sleep with or marry, or whether they can end their own lives should they choose to. But you don't need to be a libertarian to get to those places. These are also progressive ideas as well.

Where libertarianism breaks down is in assuming that we can all just do what we want and it will work out great. And in assuming that all private actors are essentially well intentioned. Neither of these is true, and a libertarian society would leave each of us at the mercy of these twin fallacies. And that's an ugly place to be, let me tell you.

Suppose you bought a house and had a fat mortgage outstanding on it. Now the guy who owns the plot next door decides to build an abattoir on his land. You can't live in your house anymore because of the nauseating, permeating, stink. You also can't sell it, because no one else wants to live there either. And you're still stuck paying the mortgage, probably plunging you into bankruptcy since you're now also paying rent to live somewhere else. Why did all this happen? Because you voted for that libertarian city council, and they threw out all the zoning laws on the books, preferring maximum freedom for use of private property instead. Aren't you thrilled about how that worked out?

So you pack all your belongings in your car and decide to drive away. But you turn around after going just a couple of miles, because everybody drives on any side of the road they want to, whenever they want to, and it's scary dangerous out there. Why? Because the libertarian state government you elected - true to its principles - eliminated all such driving laws as the restrictions on personal freedom they truly are.

So maybe you'll fly instead, eh? Oops. Sorry. That's just as frightening. The new libertarian federal government eliminated the FAA and all its restrictions on private carriers as an invasion of their corporate liberties. No red tape here anymore! No onerous regulations! Now each carrier can hire whomever it wants, at whatever salary, to do whatever amount of safety inspection it deems appropriate. Or none at all. No reason to worry, though. I'm sure a corporation would never cut corners in order to maximize profits, right?

Well, actually, never mind - the flying off to a better place idea is moot anyhow. You see, there's no airport in your town. No private actors had either the resources or the motivation to build one. And since government is evil, they never did the job either. Which is also why you're about to lose you job, as well. With no ports, trains, highways, internet or other mass infrastructure, the US is about to become an economic actor more or less on the scale of Togo. Congratulations on that bright move, my libertarian friend! How does the freedom of chronic unemployment taste? Yummy, eh?

But, really, what do you care, anyhow? Your water is polluted because anyone can dump anything into it they want. Ditto with your filthy air. And global warming is about to take out all the living things on the planet, anyhow. We will be quite free to die, thanks to libertarianism.

Well, all is not lost. At least you can walk down to your local dining establishment and have a nice meal without having to fear the presence of darkies or queers in the same room with you. That pretty much makes it all worth it, no?

We could go on and on from here, but why bother? The point is made. The problem with libertarianism is that it is a child's candy store fantasy. Lots of sugar, no nutritional value. It's the Mel Gibson ("Freeeee-dom!!") of political ideologies. The ugly truth is that we hominids are social animals, not atomistic asteroids, each flying through space in our own little orbit. At the end of the day, the simultaneous great delight and awful curse of our humanness is, ultimately, each other.

That is not to say that individual liberty is not important. It is, and I no more favor libertarianism's opposite number, totalitarianism, than I do the lunacy of Ayn Rand, who spent her life (vastly over-)reacting to the Stalinism of her youth. I don't want to live in either of those worlds. It's just that it's naive and juvenile to believe that what is required here is anything other than some sort of difficult balance between the needs of the individual and those of society. That's the only solution that works.

One would think we might have learned this lesson of late. We've just come through an era of wholesale foolish deregulation in the name of setting free Americans and their productive capacities. The whole of our ethos of political economy these last three decades could easily be boiled down to a single bumper-sticker: "Government Bad, Industry Good". So now we might wanna ask ourselves, as Sarah Palin would put it (assuming she had a brain larger than a centipede's), "How's that whole deregulatey depressiony thing working out for you?"

Sorry, Mr. Paul. Just when we've seen precisely what happens when greedy individuals with all the morality of mafia hit men are allowed to do whatever they want by a government that is completely coopted by them on a good day, and utterly AWOL the rest of the time, you come talking to me about more ‘freedom' from government intrusion?!?! Are you joking?

Government, as imperfect and downright lethal as it can be when in the hands of those who use it for the wrong purposes, is the instrument and expression of the public will. It is the tool through which society conveys its values and seeks to achieve our mutual goals. And it is meant to be triumphant over private actors because societal needs (which, by the way, can, should and often do include government protecting individual liberties - see, for example, "Rights, Bill of") are broadly more important than those of the individual.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Here's a great rant on Rand Paul and the obvious flaws of libertarianism.

So, by my count, Maddow asks Paul the core question here no fewer than eight times in a row. This is precisely what she should have been doing, and in doing so she provides a huge service to American society. If I were to fault her anywhere, it would be only for not identifying Paul's diversionary tactics for what they were, calling them out, and thereby pushing them off the table. I would have liked to have seen her say, "With respect, sir, we're not talking about that. Or that, or that, or that. We're talking about this."

And she would have needed to do that several times over, because Paul's game here is to shift the discussion to domains where he is more comfortable, and where the problems with his ideology don't show up so readily. Maddow says let's talk about discrimination in privately-held public accommodations, and he says let's talk about my lack of prejudice. She tries again and he wants to discuss governmental discrimination. She repeats the question and he says let's talk about nineteenth century history. She asks once more and he starts talking about censorship and the First Amendment. She tries yet again and he changes the topic to guns, which involves legislating behavior, rather than race, which concerns who you are. She asks still another time and he cries foul, claiming that this is some obscure red herring being used by his opponents for purposes of political assassination.

All of these are diversionary lies, meant to avoid the unpleasant realities of what libertarianism would actually look like in action. But the last lie is the most egregious. The entire reason for Rand Paul's existence right now - which is also almost literally true, given that he has the unfortunate burden of being named for Ayn Rand, a twisted soul if ever there was - is his premise of reclaiming American government in the name of liberty for the American people. That's who he is. That's what he represents himself to be. That's his political shtick, his raison d'être. What the Maddow interview reveals, however, is that he's really just another politician trying to win office, not a crusader at all. And what it also reveals is just how bankrupt are those libertarian notions if you look at them at all closely.

The ideology has some nice bumper-sticker like appeal, especially for the more simplistic among us. I mean, who, after all, could be against more freedom? And, indeed, when it comes to social issues, the libertarians have it exactly right. The government shouldn't be in the business of controlling women's bodies, or telling people what substances they can imbibe, or who they can sleep with or marry, or whether they can end their own lives should they choose to. But you don't need to be a libertarian to get to those places. These are also progressive ideas as well.

Where libertarianism breaks down is in assuming that we can all just do what we want and it will work out great. And in assuming that all private actors are essentially well intentioned. Neither of these is true, and a libertarian society would leave each of us at the mercy of these twin fallacies. And that's an ugly place to be, let me tell you.

Suppose you bought a house and had a fat mortgage outstanding on it. Now the guy who owns the plot next door decides to build an abattoir on his land. You can't live in your house anymore because of the nauseating, permeating, stink. You also can't sell it, because no one else wants to live there either. And you're still stuck paying the mortgage, probably plunging you into bankruptcy since you're now also paying rent to live somewhere else. Why did all this happen? Because you voted for that libertarian city council, and they threw out all the zoning laws on the books, preferring maximum freedom for use of private property instead. Aren't you thrilled about how that worked out?

So you pack all your belongings in your car and decide to drive away. But you turn around after going just a couple of miles, because everybody drives on any side of the road they want to, whenever they want to, and it's scary dangerous out there. Why? Because the libertarian state government you elected - true to its principles - eliminated all such driving laws as the restrictions on personal freedom they truly are.

So maybe you'll fly instead, eh? Oops. Sorry. That's just as frightening. The new libertarian federal government eliminated the FAA and all its restrictions on private carriers as an invasion of their corporate liberties. No red tape here anymore! No onerous regulations! Now each carrier can hire whomever it wants, at whatever salary, to do whatever amount of safety inspection it deems appropriate. Or none at all. No reason to worry, though. I'm sure a corporation would never cut corners in order to maximize profits, right?

Well, actually, never mind - the flying off to a better place idea is moot anyhow. You see, there's no airport in your town. No private actors had either the resources or the motivation to build one. And since government is evil, they never did the job either. Which is also why you're about to lose you job, as well. With no ports, trains, highways, internet or other mass infrastructure, the US is about to become an economic actor more or less on the scale of Togo. Congratulations on that bright move, my libertarian friend! How does the freedom of chronic unemployment taste? Yummy, eh?

But, really, what do you care, anyhow? Your water is polluted because anyone can dump anything into it they want. Ditto with your filthy air. And global warming is about to take out all the living things on the planet, anyhow. We will be quite free to die, thanks to libertarianism.

Well, all is not lost. At least you can walk down to your local dining establishment and have a nice meal without having to fear the presence of darkies or queers in the same room with you. That pretty much makes it all worth it, no?

We could go on and on from here, but why bother? The point is made. The problem with libertarianism is that it is a child's candy store fantasy. Lots of sugar, no nutritional value. It's the Mel Gibson ("Freeeee-dom!!") of political ideologies. The ugly truth is that we hominids are social animals, not atomistic asteroids, each flying through space in our own little orbit. At the end of the day, the simultaneous great delight and awful curse of our humanness is, ultimately, each other.

That is not to say that individual liberty is not important. It is, and I no more favor libertarianism's opposite number, totalitarianism, than I do the lunacy of Ayn Rand, who spent her life (vastly over-)reacting to the Stalinism of her youth. I don't want to live in either of those worlds. It's just that it's naive and juvenile to believe that what is required here is anything other than some sort of difficult balance between the needs of the individual and those of society. That's the only solution that works.

One would think we might have learned this lesson of late. We've just come through an era of wholesale foolish deregulation in the name of setting free Americans and their productive capacities. The whole of our ethos of political economy these last three decades could easily be boiled down to a single bumper-sticker: "Government Bad, Industry Good". So now we might wanna ask ourselves, as Sarah Palin would put it (assuming she had a brain larger than a centipede's), "How's that whole deregulatey depressiony thing working out for you?"

Sorry, Mr. Paul. Just when we've seen precisely what happens when greedy individuals with all the morality of mafia hit men are allowed to do whatever they want by a government that is completely coopted by them on a good day, and utterly AWOL the rest of the time, you come talking to me about more ‘freedom' from government intrusion?!?! Are you joking?

Government, as imperfect and downright lethal as it can be when in the hands of those who use it for the wrong purposes, is the instrument and expression of the public will. It is the tool through which society conveys its values and seeks to achieve our mutual goals. And it is meant to be triumphant over private actors because societal needs (which, by the way, can, should and often do include government protecting individual liberties - see, for example, "Rights, Bill of") are broadly more important than those of the individual.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rand sure does make it easy to paint him as a propeller-beanie whack job; he has zero chance of getting elected - even in Texas..

[OL FU]

I guess I have enjoyed this discussion since I seem to keep jumping in. One reason is that , for the most part, it has been done without name calling and petty stereotyping. Thanks for that.

I generally tend toward a libertarian philosophy. However, I would guess that I am a moderate libertarian (if there is such a thing) because I do believe that one has to be practical in approaches. My basic belief is that government should leave business and commerce alone. But that isn't totally practical. There have to be laws that (1) make the rules for fair play (which I would assume even the most extreme libertarian would concur) and (2) to regulate the behavior of others due to the impact on society at large (pollution, market manipulation, devaluing neighbor's property due to different uses, etc.) This is certainly one of those practical applications. Does a person have a right to discriminate? While wrong, if the number of people who discriminate is immaterial then there probably is no need for government regulation. But it doesn't take an observant person to understand that discrimination and segragation was rampant in society prior to the civil rights laws. And the exlusion of a significant portion of the the population from significant portions of the market place simply due to race could no longer be tolerated. So one principle, libertarianism, was trumped by another principle, equal participation.

And yes society was successful prior to the civil rights laws, but much less successful than it could have or should have been.

[GSUAlumniEagle]

I don't have anything of note to add to the discussion, but I felt the need to jump in and just agree with an above poster that I've enjoyed the discussion, and the way it's been handled, in this thread immensely.