Why must I always be contrarian? How can I not be when in the cyber company of the silent macsnority asleep at the wheel of the vehicle of reason? The comments of Rand Paul drew much less reaction than their provocative nature would have prophesized. It lends weight to my contention that many of the blogger class focus on defending the labels by which they identify, and allow ludicrous renditions of their creed to by-pass rudimentary inspection for reasonableness or validity. Many Libertarians defend Mr. Paul’s revisionist view on the raison d’être and necessity of Civil Rights legislation, because as a Libertarian he is entitled to free speech and his opinions on the uses and role of government. They convert the argument to a debate over his right to his views and deemphasize the thesis that emerged from his befuddled Libertarian mind.
I am as Libertarian as the next person, preferring government to enter my sphere of life when invited and otherwise remaining distant and remote. But I also recognize that government in some form or another is as inseparable from human society as marriage, speech, writing, and economy. Even the most aggressive Libertarian wouldn’t advocate for the total absence of government, over the benefits of mutuality inherent in some level of government; especially government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The very inclusion of diverse opinion should impose necessary restrictions on over-reaching government, if the political process is assiduously embraced by the governed. And I believe Libertarianism is a welcome and legitimate voice. But Mr. Paul’s logic was all wrong.
He opined that in his ideal world private businesses should not have been required, by government mandate, to serve or contract with anyone they chose not to enjoin with. If they chose to make race the demarcation place, then they should have been free to do so. If you want to factor Libertarianism to the last decimal point this may be a valid argument, but taken to that degree you are faced with an extremity that merges with impractical idiocy.
If black people paid taxes that allowed roads to be built so that customers could travel to stores, if they were complicit in sidewalks being laid, if their contribution to the public utilities that allowed businesses to be lighted and heated and caused telephones to ring is considered, and if they paid sales tax on items purchased using universally accepted government- issued legal tender, and if none of these obligations were exempted, reduced, or mediated due to race, then it is hard to understand how, because of race, they could be denied the benefits of the commerce and convenience their dollars helped make available to others. There was nothing Libertarian about Jim Crow. It was wicked, evil, ignorant exploitation that totally avoided concepts of citizenship and fairness, and was based exclusively on racism.
At this point I feel no need to elaborate further or be more in-depth than was Senatorial-candidate Paul, but I do have another question. Why now? Why in this era of fiscal crisis, two budget busting permanent wars, environmental catastrophe, international turmoil and economic threat, and Big Brother masquerading as OnStar, did Mr. Paul choose to re-open forty year old settled law concerning Civil Rights, absent a precipitating racial incident that caused societal attention to wander in that direction? Are there no other areas of discomfort that could be expected to be more in the forefront of a Libertarian’s mind? Or is a sitting black President an affront to Libertarianism? Stealthy racial incitement is a First Amendment entitlement, but doesn’t assuage a cursory consideration of Mr. Paul’s ruminations which seem only to reveal, not positive or well-meaning philosophical or social insight, but cynical political pandering to the sick, reactionary troglodytes who always surface when the rock of change is upended?
No comments:
Post a Comment