LIBERTARIAN DUALITY SYMBOL

Within 24 hours of getting the first Tea Party nomination for a major political office in the United States, Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul already committed his first political faux pas in his equivocation regarding a key component of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In an interview last night on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Rand was pressed by Maddow to state whether or not he would oppose the key provision under the landmark legislation prohibiting private sector discrimination based on race.  Rand categorically denied that he was a racist and insisted that this position, based on Libertarian principles which philosophically oppose government intervention in the private sector, was the basis for his argument that this portion of the legislation was flawed and that he would not support it. 

Today, Rand backtracked from his political posture last night, now saying that he would not advocate for the repeal of the legislation, in whole or part.  He said that appearing on Maddow’s show was a “poor political decision” – inferring that her questioning was another Sarah Palin, liberal media “gotcha” moment.  He complained to Maddow about her line of questioning during the interview, claiming that the issue of private property owners’ rights under the law was “an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you bring up … You bring up something that really is not an issue.”

I like Rand Paul.  I don’t believe for one moment that he is a racist.  Neither does Rachel Maddow, and her questioning was not a hatchet job.  She is sincerely interested in how Libertarian purists might dismantle 235 years of constitutional interpretation and legislation.  I watched the interview, and her questions were fair.  Moreover, I think both Rand and his father, Ron Paul, are well-intentioned, intelligent anti-establishment politicians.  There is ample room for men of their intellectual and philosophical stature under the tent of American politics.  But their positions on serious political and legislative matters must be explored.

Unfortunately for Rand, that is why his alignment with principles of Libertarianism, and the Tea Party’s deep criticism of prior legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does make it an issue.  If the Tea Party candidates are going to run on a platform that advocates for the dismantling of any and all government regulation affecting private property rights, they have to accept the fact that critics have good reason to question their intentions regarding repeal of prior legislation, and what those actions would mean for ten’s of millions of Americans.

Most people are not familiar with Libertarianism – a modern, free market philosophy – it eschews government interference in any aspect of private life, while advocating for freedom of speech and behavior, so long as it does not harm anyone.  Of course, in theory, it all sounds very enticing.  I personally considered myself to once be a Libertarian. 

However, that all began to change after recognizing that those among us who have more “freedom” – as in money or power - will utilize that advantage in order to quash or interfere with the freedom of others to pursue their own goals and dreams.  What I often hear in response is that “life isn’t fair” – inequities will always exist.

If that is so, we are headed back to a time when robber barons and monopolists are allowed to manipulate and “game the system” for their own devices.  Wall Street’s domination of the finanical landscape is a case in point.  Once they have wrested complete control or dominated an intolerable degree of economic and political life in America, social unrest and anarchy will inevitably rule the day.  Case in point:  the colonial revolt against England in 1776.  I would think Rand Paul and the Tea Party might see the irony in that.

Even Adam Smith – author of Wealth of Nations, and the father of free markets – recognized that government intervention was a necessary evil.  For those of you who doubt this, read the book (here is a free online edition).  I did over thirty years ago. And I have read it several times since then.  Smith was a closet “socialist” (with a small “s”).  The principle underlying his whole theory was the overall social good would be elevated by HARNESSING – as in placing a bridle on – greed.  When you harness a horse – you keep it under control.  You do not let it run completely free. 

Libertarians think the horse should never be bridled; under any circumstances.  The law of unintended consequences will always come into play when you let a horse run wild.

For that reason alone, Rand Paul must accept the reality of having to go down the rabbit hole of American politics. 

 Just go ask Alice . . . or Barry Goldwater.