Skip to main content

Anti-government conservatives say that government is "collectivism" and immoral.  They say any government interferes with individual and business rights.  Sarah Palin has said that government caused the Great Depression.  Glenn Beck says that government is socialism.

Now Kentucky Tea Party Senate candidate Rand Paul says civil rights legislation is wrong because it is government interference with the right of individuals to "freely associate."  It is wrong because it is the "collective," or community imposing their will on the individuals and businesses who choose to discriminate based on race, etc...

These libertarian ideas always make me wonder why they don't also come out against police departments as "government meddling."  After all, laws are just more examples of the community imposing its idiotic morals on individuals.  You might say robbery and murder interfere with the rights of people to live, and therefore must be punished, but isn't that exactly the same as not letting a person do business or eat or sleep in a hotel based on skin color? They're against those laws, so why not be consistent and be against other laws?  Isn't a law against robbery the same as regulation of business that is designed to protect consumers from being scammed?  They're against that as "government interference" in the rights of the business to scam consumers.   Why aren't they against laws against fraud?

At least Ayn Rand was consistent.  She wrote that a serial killer was an "ideal man," a superior form of human because he didn't let society impose their morals on him,  He didn't worry about what others thought and just did as he pleased.   "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," Rand wrote.  Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"  This is the foundation of the modern conservative thinking.

So don't be surprised when a "Tea Party" candidate comes out and says there should be no civil rights laws, no regulation of business.  Just be surprised when they don't come out and say that it is no one's business who murders who.

Originally posted to davej on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    --
    Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: @dcjohnson

    by davej on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:01:15 PM PDT

  •  They are all IDIOTS! (3+ / 0-)

    All of them.

    Nuff said.

  •  If journalists would just do their jobs, (5+ / 0-)

    these neanderthals could be exposed for their backward beliefs.

    Capitalism thrives on raising funds on assets that have no value.

    by A Runner on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:04:32 PM PDT

  •  It's interesting because what Ayn Rand Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oxon

    said was so controversial, we are now actually getting some real journalism.  I'm waiting, however, for them to ask him what he thinks about legalization of prostitution and marijuana.  The reich is not gonna like it.

    Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." -- Patti Smith

    by followyourbliss on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:08:54 PM PDT

    •  Ha! True. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      followyourbliss

      I've often wondered why nobody has challenged drug laws under the provisions of NAFTA, which clearly states that no signatory nation may pass domestic laws deemed to be an impediment to trade.  Hmmm...

      It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

      by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:15:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DEA restrictions on import of hemp products (5+ / 0-)

        were overturned in a suit brought by Canadian producers under NAFTA.

        The Treaty does NOT bar "domestic laws deemed to be an impediment to trade," rather, only laws which interfere with trade in products listed in the treaty, which explicitly includes hemp fiber. (I dug up the provision, passed it along to the Hemp Industries Association, a co-plaintiff in the suit.)


        When Sheriff Arpaio asks for my papers, I'll hand him a pack of ZigZags.

        by ben masel on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hemp is NOT cannabis! (0+ / 0-)

          The plants are related, but hops is in the same family and I seriously doubt anyone conflates hops w/ either cannabis or hemp.

          What is infuriating about the hemp ban in the states is that the Lakota Sioux living on the Pine Ridge Reservation have attempted unsuccessfully to grow hemp on their sovereign land per the treaty which placed them on the reservation. Moreover, PRR is one of the poorest reservations among native Americans which is doubly ironic since PRR is near Mt. Rushmore.

          •  Hemp IS Canabis. optimized for different property (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oxon

            While hops is the closest cousin, it's a couple steps removed.

            (I turned the Lakota on to the statutory provision on which they brought the case.)


            When Sheriff Arpaio asks for my papers, I'll hand him a pack of ZigZags.

            by ben masel on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:02:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wow! You are right in the middle of this, (0+ / 0-)

              aren't you.  I'm impressed.  Carry on.

              It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

              by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:01:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  1990, I'm running for Governor (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oxon

                v Tommy Thompson in the Republican primary, as a single-issue agricultural hemp campaign.

                While out collecting ballot signatures, I met Richard Monat, a ho-chunk law prof specializing in treaty rights, and mentioned that the federal regulations governing licensing of hemp farms contained language referencing licenses issued by State or tribal authorities.

                By the 2nd drink, he'd pieced this together with language in the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty which gave the Lakota Nation rights to regulate agriculture on their land, (a power not reserved in the US Treaties with most Native Nations.)


                When Sheriff Arpaio asks for my papers, I'll hand him a pack of ZigZags.

                by ben masel on Thu May 20, 2010 at 04:48:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Solidly behind legalization of marijuana. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      forester


      When Sheriff Arpaio asks for my papers, I'll hand him a pack of ZigZags.

      by ben masel on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:16:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ode to Sociopathology. Ayn Rand. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm always astonished that anyone ever took her seriously, whether as a turgid, constipated writer, or as a 3rd tier intellectual.  But I truly resent her commandeering, as did the real Nazis before her, my beloved Nietzsche.

    It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

    by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:13:28 PM PDT

    •  Oh, thank you. I agree. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oxon

      Nietzsche is so wonderful and what he said was so ruined by his sister and brother-in-law.  Have you heard of the community in Argentina they founded.  Really sick society.  Last I heard, about 30 were still there, but most were so inbred that let's just say there was no more "Will to Power" left.  Sick, sick people so misused poor Friedrich.

      Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." -- Patti Smith

      by followyourbliss on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:18:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! No, I'd never heard of that. (0+ / 0-)

        What's it called?  I need to look it up.

        I used to have a tag-line that read, "Is the victim moral?"  I thought it cut to the core of much of conflict-politics: competitive victimhood, and victimhood (a la the T party) as a prerequisite for moral standing.

        Yeah.  A whole bunch of people got THAT.

        Ever read Deleuze?  Somebody on here has that as their user ID.

        It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

        by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:24:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know the name, and it's probably (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oxon, leftist vegetarian patriot

          been ten years since I read about them.  But my guess is if you put Argentina and Nietzsche in the Google, you might find something.  I've never heard of Deleuze.  Who is s/he?  What does s/he say?

          Friedrich's sister "wrote" "Will to Power" by pulling Nietzsche's discarded sections out of the trash, thus forever literally trashing what he truly believed.  There's a reason he threw those pieces away, but, like the modern Tea Baggers, long discarded, segmented ideas are enough for them to destroy the actual thought behind the sentiment.  Witness the idea that they are supposed to be "populist."  But their form of "populism" ends up blaming those below them economically rather than the true culprits, the true elite -- the banksters.  Instead they defend the exact people who harm them rather than defend those harmed.  It's pathetic, but predictable and racist at its very heart.  Much like what Nietzsche's sister did with his thought.

          Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." -- Patti Smith

          by followyourbliss on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:36:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You should read Deleuze if you get the chance. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            followyourbliss

            Warning: Can be intimidating.  Just e-mail me if you tackle him, and I'll guide you through.

            Gilles Deleuze was considered to be the most important philosopher in France after Foucault's death, and in fact, the two knew and respected each other.  Deleuze rehabilitated Nietzsche in the West, rescuing him from his post-mortem fling with the Reich, re-elevated Spinoza, and went on to incorporate them (along with Henri Bergson) into a searingly brilliant corpus of original thought.  He co-authored some important books with Felix Guattari.

            A thumbnail won't do it justice, but he takes Nietzsche's intersection of forces (from Spinoza), filters it through Bergson's work on memory, to argue (inter alia) that the ethical act is the creative act.  We subtly create each other through our actions, retained in memory which shapes us.  In the same way as all things are the result of intersections, of collisions, of caresses.  

            The ethical, then, is not to refrain from a negative act so much as engage in a positive one, to render the other more capable of action than he/she was before.  To amplify each other.

            Nietzsche considered that forces were active or reactive.  Deleuze (especially with Guattari) complicates this wonderfully by demonstrating all manner of interactions.  His is a celebration of complexity in and of itself.

            It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

            by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:24:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nueva Germania. Paraguay. (0+ / 0-)

            Founded by Aryan supremacists to get away from "Jewish Influence."  As you say, the colony failed.  The supreme ones tried to use "superior" German agricultural technology in the jungle.  Good one.

            It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

            by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:59:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What's wonderful about Nietzsche? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oxon

      I found his writing rather turgid myself, though I never read him in the original German.  But I gather you were speaking about his philosophy...

      •  Nothing, he's exactly what you think he is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boophus

        The germ of what the Nazis, Ayn Rand, and the neoconservatives (you'll see) allegedly turned Nietzsche into is already present in his writings.

        Nietzsche believed that there ought to be a stratum of society that create the values which everyone else will believe and live by: i.e. a ruling class. He believed that the behavior of this stratum should not be restrained by any code of ethics or law other than what they themselves create, which is no restraint at all. He believed that this stratum was not only necessary but desirable as only it could give value and purpose to the lower orders, who are incapable of desiring anything other than comfortable idleness ... sounds pretty neoconservative, doesn't he?

        Nietzsche believed that democracy, human rights, Christian ideals of humility, and even simple compassion prevented his blessedly psychopathic übermensch from emerging from the mass of humanity, and taking it up in his hands and shaping it and destroying it according to his whims. Nietzsche's ideal (though admittedly never stated explicitly) was aristocracy: kings and emperors playing with the world on a string - titans eternally warring with each other for supremacy.

        Nietzsche also believed in a sort of 'trickle down' effect, where us mere mortals would be conscripted to fight the übermensch's battles and raise up his monuments to himself, and thus be able to share in his glory in some small way, just as the mythological heroes of Ancient Greece fought and died to entertain the gods.

        •  Suffice to say that I disagree (0+ / 0-)

          entirely.  You are reading the superman as an external, separate other, just as Rand did.

          That wasn't his point.  The point was to engage rather than judge, to dance rather than suffer, even if it is harder to do.  The call isn't to SERVE Dionysus, but to be Dionysus.

          See, he starts from Spinoza's Ethics which (to brutally simplify) posits that the capacity for action is the same as being.  To enhance the capacity for action (power; puissance; capability) is to enhance being.  In this reading there is more will to power in an average one year-old than in all the political leaders ever assembled.  It is the desire to become.

          The dictator, the king, the emperor, is, in fact, an example of "slave-mentality," motivated by resentment.  Much as the T party is.  But resentment running counter to a straight-forward desire, gets one nowhere.

          Should desire be tied to judgement?  His rejection of judgment is not a rejection of ethical action.  Rather he extends Spinoza's point that ethical action means enhancing the other, combining with the other, not just refraining from harm.

          That, at least, are some of the aspects of his work that find compelling and relevant.

          It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

          by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:37:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is completely illogical (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            boophus

            The king is of the "slave mentality"? That's illogical. The king is by definition the master. Teabaggers resent the rest of us because they are deluded into believing that we have power over them, when in fact they - or rather their corporatist masters - have power over all of us, and merely lie to the teabaggers in order to use them: just as any master would.

            The 'slave morality' at its simplest is when one first defines evil, and good is defined automatically by evil as its opposite. It is the slave who resents the master, and so he defines the master as evil, and therefore to be good is not to be a master or anything that a master is.

            Conversely, the 'master morality' begins with the definition of good as identical to oneself, and much as before, evil is automatically defined by good as its opposite: i.e. anything other than oneself. At best you have the makings of a psychopath who is coldly indifferent to the suffering he causes as he works to maximize himself.

            You say that the average one-year-old has more 'will to power' than all the politicians in the world. I question this - a one-year-old can barely walk, never mind think or want anything other than milk - but besides ... who in their right mind would want to live in a world created by and for toddlers, and toddlers with absolute power no less? This is essentially what Nietzsche proposes: a world ruled by beings who arbitrarily elevate their basest impulses to supreme morality.

            That arbitrariness is how Nietzsche (and you) can argue that "His rejection of judgment is not a rejection of ethical action" - that amorality is functionally indistinguishable from morality because it is internally self-consistent. The übermensch is moral only because he has declared himself to be; his personal moral code is just as circular as god-based moral codes. Both philosophies justify this by arguing that God and the übermensch metaphysically define morality for the Universe and everyone in it and therefore can only be judged by their own standards.

            P1: X is good, where X is God or the übermensch.
            P2: X is X.
            C: X is good.
            The simplest definition of circular logic is where the premise and the conclusion are identical.

            Nothing in Nietzsche suggests that the superman is not meant to be a flesh-and-blood human. What is the relevance of his philosophy if it is not a prescription for humanity? I could also take a page from Wittgenstein and argue that the "real" Nietzsche is the [deliberately] misinterpreted one, given the nature of the people most attracted to Nietzsche's philosophy, along with the gist of Nietzsche is that one ought to become [like] the superman.

      •  See my response to Visceral, below, (0+ / 0-)

        for my own take.

        Well after his death his sister, not the sharpest blade in the drawer, compiled some of Nietzsche's discards and gave them to Hitler as a gift. The association has remained in social memory, unfortunately.  It wasn't until the early '60s that he was resurrected, first in France, then beyond.

        It takes a movement to change the world, and the Oval Office just can't hold all of us --- me, in a moment of pithy pique.

        by oxon on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:40:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not sure about Rand, but the elder Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    followyourbliss

    opposes the Federalization of police functions traditionally handled, and more importantly funded, at the local level. With this, I agree. With the federal funding comes strings, pushing them towards political surveilence and drug law enforcement, and at the same time, a reduction in accountability to local elected officials, who don't get to monitor the multijurisdiction task forces, participation in which is a condition of funding.


    When Sheriff Arpaio asks for my papers, I'll hand him a pack of ZigZags.

    by ben masel on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:14:43 PM PDT

  •  re: Hickman... (3+ / 0-)
     

    Ayn Rand psychobabble:

     

    Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"  This is the foundation of the modern conservative thinking.

    Teabagger translation:

    "As long as Hickman doesn't rape & murder me, I'm a great admirer of Hickman's "freedom."

    But if Hickman fucks with me personally, I'm running to first government agency I can find to demand the government protect me from sociopaths like Hickman."

    That's the Tea Party/Ayn Rand wildly hypocritical version of reality.

    If a million people watch Olbermann, "nobody watches him." If 2 million watch Beck, he's "a national sensation spearheading a political movement."

    by wyvern on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:18:21 PM PDT

  •  It depends on who the cops are tasing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleedingheartliberal218

    Government is never too small not to beat up black people, harass brown people, or spy on liberal whites. But the minute it does anything that in any way impinges on the "freedom" of the wealthy to do whatever they damn well please and make the taxpayers pay for it - one way or another - then government has become some giant octopus monster that must be utterly destroyed.

  •  hard to pin them down on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirk McQuigley

    they very much want to get rid of government programs but when i ask then who will do child protective services.

    their answer is the police.  i then ask, would you want child protective services run by criminal investigators?

    and isn't that just like government run child protective services?  can't compute, must stick to talking points...

  •  I beleive when the day comes that cops start (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dirk McQuigley, sow hat

    busting into the wrong homes of white people and killing innocent 7 year old white kids sleeping on couches then Rand Paul will do his best to get these 'Heroes' to return to their All-American corrupt racist ways.

    "These are people of the land. The common clay of the new west. You know.....morons!" -The Waco Kid

    by fedorko on Thu May 20, 2010 at 12:51:02 PM PDT

  •  But yet, they worship the constitution (0+ / 0-)

    Will that be Glenn Beck's next target.

    Many of my contemporaries experimented with hallucinogenic drugs. Some are still looking for their cars outside Nassau Coliseum.

    by mojave mike on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:31:03 PM PDT

  •  Whose is a libertarian? (0+ / 0-)

    Sarah Palin is NOT a Libertarian.  Neither is Glen Beck.  

    Dr Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian until he figured out that he could not get elected as a Libertarian so he became a Republican.  

    I don't see him standing up to the GOP and being a maverick.  In fact he has voted with the GOP pretty much all of the time he has been in office.

    Rand Paul is the kookiest of all his kids.  Why else would he a)run for office, b)go on Rachel Maddow's show and c)say what he said about discrimination on NPR?  

    Can you spell Nutcase?

    Visit the Iraq Memorial Quilt @ http://www.iraqmemorialquilt.com

    by pollchecker on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:11:35 PM PDT

  •  Cops are to Protect & Serve the Rich, Otherwise (0+ / 0-)

    they are intrusive and a waste of taxpayer dollars from a libertarian point of view.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site