I've seen several people say that Rand Paul is either racist or he's stupid, after his comments against civil rights legislation. Well, I don't think Rand Paul's a racist. So, I guess that leaves stupid.
But only stupid in the sense that full-blown (capital L) Libertarianism itself is stupid. As many of you have noted, and as I've been known to say myself, a (lowercase l) libertarian philosophy sounds pretty good on paper, and some of it even works well in reality. But when drawn to its logical conclusion, or when looked at with a historical perspective, most of it very clearly fails.
Rand Paul has a point... to a point... below the fold.
Of course, this is just my interpretation of what Rand Paul said, and while I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, I am coming to the same conclusion that the rest of today's diaries about him have - that he does not belong anywhere near the US Senate, and that it should be an embarrassment to Republicans that he won their primary, not some grass-roots victory.
What Rand Paul said is that while it's a good idea for government not to be racist, and it's a good idea for laws to apply equally to everyone, the government should not be interfering in how private individuals or businesses treat people. He says that they should be allowed to be racist if they want to be.
So Rand Paul isn't racist. He just says that racists should be allowed to be racists, in the same way that we always say the KKK should be allowed to have their protests, even though we disagree. It's a matter of free speech and assembly.
However, this is where the problem arises, and this is where Rand Paul and many other Libertarians have failed to think their flawed philosophy through. Hateful speech doesn't have the same effect as hateful action. At first blush, it sounds fine for a restaurant owner to refuse service to an African American customer. The customer has many other restaurants he can take his custom to, and in most parts of the country, when it becomes public knowledge that this restaurant owner has refused service on the basis of race, he will very quickly lose customers, and eventually go out of business. In this sense, we are voting with our dollars. Win.
But wait a minute. Not all private businesses are restaurants, although that is the example we all use, and it's the example Rand Paul used. Let's look at another business. Say, a bank. If the bank owner chooses not to lend to African Americans (a very real possibility if Rand Paul's fantasy comes to fruition, given the already existing disparity in the way banks treat people of different color), how many other choices do African American customers really have?
What if the only insurance broker in town won't serve Hispanic customers?
What if the only pharmacy in town won't sell condoms to unmarried couples?
What if an airline won't serve people from Middle Eastern countries? What if they just decide not to fly there at all?
I think we can see that this slope is as slippery as banana peels soaked in KY Jelly, because some of these things are already happening, even with strong civil rights legislation.
This is a lot more complicated than who gets to eat at the lunch counter. Libertarianism is full of crap like this that sounds good in fantasy land where everything is made of rainbows and baby farts, but given one minute of thought on the real world implications, it falls apart. In short, a motive for profit does not always make for a positive outcome for everyone. Fail.
Rand Paul's not a racist, at least not based on his statements from talking with Rachel Maddow. He's just dangerously stupid, and living in a complete fantasy land.
I just felt this needed to be pointed out because, quite frankly, a lot of people (the people we need to reach) just tune us out when they hear cries of "racism!" They need to hear about the real world effects of something in order to be convinced.
Thanks for reading.