Congratulations Rand Paul!

YouTube Preview Image

Rand and Ron Paul are the true face of the Tea Party. I support them 100% in the months and years to come.

Though I agree that with Rand that we don’t need to apologize to the world for our economic system, we do need to continually revise and update it in accordance with the demands of the moral law and human dignity. My hope is that Distributist ideas can continue to gain traction in America, and among the Catholics in the tea party and hopefully beyond.

28 Responses to Congratulations Rand Paul!

  • Anthony says:

    Its interesting to see where he departs from his father. I think Rand would be a good addition to the Senate, (as would Peter Schiff, running in CT) but he has shrewdly crafted his words to sound more hawkish than his father on foreign policy. What his personal opinions are about the wars and how he would vote I think is ambiguous.

    Frankly I think people call Ron Paul a “kook” because he actually says what he thinks. What’s amazing about Paul is his complete inability to mince words. His complete lack of charisma ironically results in him just blurting out whats going through his mind. Which in turn is actually rather refreshing when up against robots like John McCain and Mitt Romney.

    Ron Paul knows the score on the Hill and is willing to say so because at his age he really doesn’t have much to lose. Rand on the other hand has to do a little dance in order to hold together his momentum.

    I sympathize only up to a point, because tailoring words and having “pragmatic” policy positions are sort of what slid us into the current mess.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Good points. But I think Rand is playing the game wisely, shrewd like a serpent per the Gospels.

    I think Rand would have voted against the wars. Look at what he wants to introduce if he makes it into the senate – a bill that requires all new bills to be weighed against the letter of the Constitution. It’s arguable that the powers given to Bush and now claimed by El Presidente Obama to wage war and do any number of nefarious things could have never been granted had such a bill been in place. For that reason I don’t think Rand’s idea will get very far – but that he’s willing to put it forward, to me, shows that he wouldn’t support a war undeclared in the manner required by the Constitution.

  • Anthony says:

    Certainly I think you can use the issue of declaring wars as legitimate cover for whatever your vote would be in either war.

    The lack of declaration in both wars has allowed the executive branch and the military industrial complex to pretty much create a situation that has no end in sight. We will constantly be in a state of “war” and “emergency” right up to the moment either Congress stops writing checks, or the checks bounce!

  • People think Ron Paul is a kook because of what he believes, not what he says. He crafts his words carefully as well. He always dodges questions about how he’d pay for government. He’s very dodgy when talking to Truthers.

    I donated to Paul’s presidential run. He’s crazy but the alternatives are worse.

  • Anthony says:

    Paul has never dodged the question of how he’d pay for it: You have to give up the empire. No more bases around the world, no starting wars, etc. Entire departments must be wiped away. Then you build a transition that takes care of the people totally dependent now and tells the future generations that they will have to care for themselves.

    What’s crazy is thinking you can promise the people you’ll love and care for them until they die forever!

    As for Schiff’s investment business… Gold seems to be doing fairly well to me, and success in Asia is inevitabe, cuz it won’t be happening here.

  • Big Tex says:

    Congrats to the younger Dr. Paul. I tend to think he will do well in the Senate, assuming he wins the general election. He does share many policy positions in common with his father, but in the end he is his own man and has his own opinions and positions. For instance, the two differ on Gitmo, I believe.

    As regards Schiff and his investment counseling business… I seem to recall he was nails with respect to the coming housing bubble collapse. He was routinely mocked for his opinion prior to the collapse. Now, not so much. While not a perfect system, Keynesians can learn much from the Austrian school.

  • Art Deco says:

    He was also predicting hyper-inflation and recommending his clients invest in foreign securities and such. It wouldn’t have done you a bloody bit of good in the last three years.

  • Mickey Jackson says:

    I’m sick of this. Ron Paul is not “crazy.” You are if you think he is.

    Opposing the Civil Rights Act in 2010 is not “crazy”? How does his argument that freedom requires us to allow private discrimination not also justify the pro-choice position on abortion? He may as well have said, “I’m personally opposed to racism and would never discriminate against a black man, but I support others’ right to do so.” This kind of pure, unbridled libertarianism is dangerous,

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Neither Ron nor Rand Paul “oppose” the Civil Rights Act. That’s complete nonsense.

    They find federal regulation of private business, which is only one part of the law, to be questionable. And they have a legitimate reason for doing so. You may disagree, and that’s fine, but it’s not “crazy”, it’s not something you have to be mentally ill to believe.

    As a matter of fact, I support a person’s right to be a racist. We’re a free society with a First Amendment. We don’t have a thought police, as much as some leftists would love to be able to have one, some rightists apparently as well.

    Ok, I edited my previous comment because I misread. You said discriminate, you weren’t talking about a mere thought. Fair enough. That makes matters a little more complicated, but I don’t think it is beyond the pale of reasonable discourse to suggest that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in preventing discrimination in private business.

  • Mickey Jackson says:

    Perhaps I could have worded my post a bit more carefully. I agree that people have the right to BE racist. I do not at all agree that people have the right to PRACTICE racism against others. While I realize that racial discrimination (much like torture) is not on par with abortion in terms of the harm that it causes, I think that Catholic social teaching is pretty clear that it is an intrinsic evil. Because of this fact, and because of the fact that one individual’s decision to engage in racial discrimination (unlike other intrinsic evils, such as masturbation and certain forms of lying) deprives other individuals of their legitimate rights (and thus, in a certain sense, IS a violent act), the civil authority has the right and indeed the obligation to restrict this act. I see no essential difference between saying that federal regulation of private business for the sake of ending such discrimination is “questionable,” and saying the same thing about federal regulation of a woman’s “medical” decisions. Just as killing an unborn fetus is not in fact a legitimate medical decision, choosing to discriminate against a black or brown person is not a legitimate exercise of free enterprise.

  • Mickey Jackson says:

    Alright, I didn’t see your edit to your post because I was writing my reply, so ignore my first two sentences.

    But my intent was not to “compare murdering innocent human beings with acts of discrimination.” It was to point out that the argument used to justify the libertarian position with regard to the latter could also be used to justify the pro-choice position with regard to the former. I often see a similar accusation thrown out against Catholics who note that support for torture is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview. True, torturing terrorists is not on the same moral level as killing unborn children, but it’s still wrong, and the arguments used to justify one are identical to those used to justify the other, and are thus equally erroneous from a Catholic perspective.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I want to address this point first:

    “I see no essential difference between saying that federal regulation of private business for the sake of ending such discrimination is “questionable,” and saying the same thing about federal regulation of a woman’s “medical” decisions.”

    No, there is an “essential” difference.

    What I think you mean to say, and please forgive me if I presume too much, is that the logic is the same, which it is. But the logic of the argument is not the essence of the argument.

    Abortion is murder. Institutional discrimination is an injustice and it results in many bad things, but it does not carry the same moral gravity as institutionalized murder.

    In some cases, it is perfectly fine for the principles of individual liberty used by the Pauls to be applied; in other cases, it isn’t. There is no further logic that demands that libertarian principles be applied in the same way in every circumstance – that is a fallacy. I hope you can see that it is a fallacy.

    “I think that Catholic social teaching is pretty clear that it is an intrinsic evil.”

    So is taking God’s name in vain – something million of people do every hour of the day. Is that less worthy of societal condemnation and prohibition? It used to be against the law, a long time ago, to blaspheme Jesus Christ, at the local level, during the colonial era. Could you imagine such a thing happening today? And yet, it is undoubtedly an intrinsic evil to blaspheme God.

    Not all intrinsic evils demand state intervention, and certainly not federal intervention. I think the Pauls have made clear that they would support any effort by local government from the state level down to make laws on such matters – it is the involvement of the federal government they find questionable, as do I.

    Of course, you do go on to add that discrimination is unique because it,

    “deprives other individuals of their legitimate rights”

    Well then lets be clear: the intrinsic evil of race hatred and prejudice (I’m not going to say that every conceivable act of “discrimination” is intrinsically evil) is not the issue. It’s a deprivation of legitimate rights.

    It can be argued, and I believe libertarians argue, that to force upon individuals and property owners associations not of their choosing is a violation of THEIR legitimate rights of association and private property.

    That aside:

    Do citizens have a universal, natural right to patronize any business they choose? I can’t say I know the answer to that, but my guess is no, they don’t.

    But if they are citizens, they have every right to the full range of services that they are eligible for regardless of race or any other factor, and the Pauls recognize the validity of that aspect of the Civil Rights Act, as do I.

    So, in sum, I would say the rights of a citizen are the business of the state, while the privileges of a customer are the business of business. Naturally I think that any private establishment that refused to serve or sell to people of a particular race would be out of business in short order, in most parts of the country.

    I do wonder what the response would be if it were a black or a brown business refusing to serve whites. Or Asians. I wonder where all the hysterical race-pimps would be then. My guess is that at least some of them would make many of the same arguments that white conservative libertarians make when it comes to business in general.

    The unspoken reality on the left is that racism against whites is OK because whites have had it good for so long. Whites are “privileged” just by being white, so it’s ok to discriminate against them. Historical justice is a concept of the left, it is the righting of historical wrongs through the tacit acceptance of contemporary wrongs against the group that committed the historical wrongs. It is how they seek to balance things out.

    Now, to me, that’s intrinsic evil.

  • Tim Shipe says:

    Joe H.

    I think we have to appreciate something of the historical context- it is one thing if a store or business here or there is one where the owner says- I don’t like blacks or asians, I won’t let them eat or buy anything here. But when you have a systemic level of such loutishness it becomes a social injustice which calls for some higher authoritarian intervention- if persuasion does not win the day in short order. If you have to drive all over town to find a gas station that will serve you because of your skin tone, or a grocery or restaurant that won’t serve “your kind” well that just isn’t going to allow some segments of society to have a basic opportunity to live a decent life. Now racism is a different question than something that has a moral quality about it- one can’t say one race is moral and another is inherently evil and undeserving of opportunities at living a decent life. But one could say that openly practicing homosexuals or cohabitating unmarrieds could be discriminated against if someone doesn’t want to rent them a room or a house that they own on moral grounds. We have to have leadership who can recognize legitimate moral grounds from senseless immoral grounds-

  • Anthony, you forgot to mention that Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the IRS and replace it with nothing. Again, how’s he propose to pay for anything?

    Do the Pauls believe that racial discrimination is a right that government has no right to infringe or do they believe that the government does have the right to stamp out racial discrimination but it’s merely unwise for practical reasons? I could get on board with the latter under some circumstances but no Catholic should subscribe to the former.

    I’m with libertarian-leaning William Buckley on this issue (and most issues). The South needed the Civil Rights Act.

  • Thanks Big Tex but Rand doesn’t answer my question directly. Does government have the right to prohibit racial discrimination at private institutions open to the public and if so, should it? If he thinks it’s a states rights issue, does he think state governments have that right and should exercise it? If he thinks it violates the 1st Amendment, would he support a constitutional amendment to ban racial discrimination at private institutions open to the public?

    I think this is an important discussion. You can be personally opposed to racial discrimination but still support the right to it. That’s still unacceptable in my book.

  • Mickey Jackson says:

    Do citizens have a universal, natural right to patronize any business they choose?

    I wouldn’t frame it that way. I would argue that citizens have a universal, natural right not to be treated as inferiors due to a personal characteristic (i.e. their race) over which they have no control. That seems pretty non-controversial from both a Catholic and modern American perspective.

    So, in sum, I would say the rights of a citizen are the business of the state, while the privileges of a customer are the business of business.

    But it’s never that simple, is it? If a black man goes into a store and refuses to leave until he is served, the owner will call the police. Which side should the police take? Do they support the customer who is (I hope you will agree) being treated unjustly? Or do they side with the business owner and thus become (as arms of the State) accessories to an intrinsically evil act? This isn’t an abstract question; we’ve all seen the pictures of police carting off sit-in participants. Even in cases of private discrimination, the State almost inevitably becomes involved, and therefore has the right and the duty to promote what is morally right and oppose what is morally wrong. Plus, from a Constitutional perspective, the courts have consistently ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows this type of regulation, at least when it comes to businesses like hotels and bus lines that are naturally associated with interstate commerce.

    Naturally I think that any private establishment that refused to serve or sell to people of a particular race would be out of business in short order, in most parts of the country.

    Maybe today, but in 1950s Alabama? It’s easy for you to say that now, but we’ve got the benefit of vastly changed societal attitudes that are likely, at least to a certain extent, the result of new generations growing up under laws that explicitly reject racial discrimination. Much like Rand Paul, you have a lot of neat theories, but your perspective is somewhat limited (as is mine). I think Adam Serwer said it best:

    Paul would never face the actual “hard part” of his vision of freedom, because it would never interfere with his own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Rand Paul would not have been turned away from a lunch counter, be refused a home, a job, or denied a loan, or told to sit in the black car of a train because of his skin color, or because of the skin color of his spouse. Paul thinks there is something “hard” about defending the kind of discrimination he would have never, ever faced. Paul’s free-market fundamentalism is being expressed after decades of social transformation that the Civil Rights Act helped create, and so the hell of segregation is but a mere abstraction, difficult to remember and easy to dismiss as belonging only to its time. It’s much easier now to say that “the market would handle it.” But it didn’t, and it wouldn’t.

    I do wonder what the response would be if it were a black or a brown business refusing to serve whites. Or Asians. I wonder where all the hysterical race-pimps would be then. My guess is that at least some of them would make many of the same arguments that white conservative libertarians make when it comes to business in general.

    Perhaps. And, in my view, they’d be just as wrong. How is this relevant to anything I said?

    The unspoken reality on the left is that racism against whites is OK because whites have had it good for so long. Whites are “privileged” just by being white, so it’s ok to discriminate against them. Historical justice is a concept of the left, it is the righting of historical wrongs through the tacit acceptance of contemporary wrongs against the group that committed the historical wrongs. It is how they seek to balance things out.

    “The unspoken reality on the left”? Seriously? Unless you’re willing to provide evidence, please don’t make such generalizations about “the left.” “The left” encompasses a wide range of ideological viewpoints; the communists you used to hang out with constitute maybe .01% of “the left” in modern America. I have many friends who would consider themselves to be part of “the left,” and I don’t think any of them would agree that “whites are ‘privileged’ just by being white, so it’s okay to discriminate against them.” True, a number of those “on the left” support affirmative action (I do not), but I don’t know anyone who does so out of a sense of “historical justice.” “They” aren’t just trying to “balance things out.”

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “I wouldn’t frame it that way.”

    Because it doesn’t work for you! :) Sure! Well, that’s how I think it ought to be framed.

    “I would argue that citizens have a universal, natural right not to be treated as inferiors due to a personal characteristic (i.e. their race) over which they have no control.”

    You already clarified in a previous post that you don’t think it is a crime to “be” racist. So should it be a crime to utter a racial slur? Does that fall under this universal right – to never have to hear a derogatory ethnic slur?

    Do you see the problem when you try to make such broad and sweeping definitions of rights? I think liberty in a broad sense is more precious and more valuable than futile, feel-good attempts to suppress any and all possible slights against a minority group. That’s one of the prices we pay for a free society – the freedom to be a racist bastard, within the limits of protected political speech and possibly, probably, those of private property rights as well.

    “That seems pretty non-controversial from both a Catholic and modern American perspective.”

    Well, not in the way you “frame it”, I must say. It’s too broad and too open to abuses in the opposite direction against legitimate and necessary political liberties and private property rights. Narrow it down and get back to us.

    Now onto your hypothetical:

    “But it’s never that simple, is it? If a black man goes into a store and refuses to leave until he is served, the owner will call the police. Which side should the police take? Do they support the customer who is (I hope you will agree) being treated unjustly? Or do they side with the business owner and thus become (as arms of the State) accessories to an intrinsically evil act?”

    We’ve already established that it is not the responsibility of the state to prevent or prohibit every possible “intrinsically evil act” – we’d have to go after blasphemers, pornographers, and other groups. If you want to unleash that, I’m ok with it on the local level. I say round up all the porn and burn it. It isn’t (ahem… shouldn’t be) protected speech, its spiritual poison.

    But realistically, it won’t happen any time soon.

    In any case, the job of the police is to enforce the law. It is the job of citizens to change it. So, I expect the police to do their jobs, unless people are being rounded up and murdered.

    It is a moral injustice to refuse to serve someone because of their color, I agree. But whether or not the police get involved depends upon whether or not it is a crime. That’s not semantics – that’s just a proper understanding of the roles of the civil authorities.

    ” Even in cases of private discrimination, the State almost inevitably becomes involved, and therefore has the right and the duty to promote what is morally right and oppose what is morally wrong.”

    Oh would that this were applied to pornography and every other form of filth that our children are exposed to every day! But how hollow it rings when the state protects every vile manner of filth and perversion!

    In any case, your “therefore” doesn’t follow. You are talking about law enforcement, which follows laws that are created by the representatives of the people, and in some states such as AZ, through the initiative of the people themselves! In a free society, the citizens are the state.

    The duty of the state to oppose immorality, and support morality, must also be balanced against the democratic will of the people. This is perfectly in keeping with Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei, which recognizes even republics as legitimate forms of government.

    I get into a lot of debates too with pro-lifers who want the federal government to use heavy-handed measures to suppress abortion. I say its best left to the states. Frankly, can we be so certain that the struggles of blacks in the South would have been abject failures without a federal law? If all that was needed was a federal law, why all the protests and boycotts?

    “Plus, from a Constitutional perspective, the courts have consistently ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause allows this type of regulation, at least when it comes to businesses like hotels and bus lines that are naturally associated with interstate commerce.”

    If that’s the case, then I’m ok with it! It depends exactly upon what you are talking about, though. When you say “this type”, what does that mean? What type?

    “Maybe today, but in 1950s Alabama? It’s easy for you to say that now, but we’ve got the benefit of vastly changed societal attitudes that are likely, at least to a certain extent, the result of new generations growing up under laws that explicitly reject racial discrimination.”

    Ah yes, the old argument, “the law instructs.” As you say, it is only true to a “certain extent.” So what makes you so sure that it is the greater part of the reason? There have been a lot of social and economic changes not mandated by law that have broken down racial barriers as well.

    I come back to my earlier question – could the civil rights movement have prevailed without a federal amendment? Is it possible that the economic and political pressure that it brought to bear at the local level would have been sufficient, perhaps even more effective in the long run?

    I can’t honestly say for sure. But I can’t see a good reason to assume that it wouldn’t have. I think the country would have been behind it, unlike now with AZ, which most of the country supports (thank God).

    “How is this relevant to anything I said?”

    That particular thing wasn’t. I just threw it out there. My apologies if it was interpreted as relevant to the argument.

    “The unspoken reality on the left”? Seriously?”

    Yes.

    “Unless you’re willing to provide evidence,”

    Oh please. You want me to track down every rotten academic and every lousy paper they’ve ever written on race relations in America? All of academia is evidence. But if you do want some rather frightening specifics, try FIRE – the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

    http://www.thefire.org/

    Browse their archives for a while. It’s the tip of the iceberg.

    “the communists you used to hang out with constitute maybe .01% of “the left””

    First of all, it’s certainly more than that. Secondly, many communists hide their beliefs. Thirdly, many people are taught to and hold communist views without knowing they are communist. Finally, the relatively small cadres occupy prominent positions in academia, the unions, the entertainment industry, and I believe the Church as well (look up Bella Dodd). They wield disproportionate power through key positions and strategic front groups, like “United for Peace and Justice”, which is a front for the Communist Party USA.

    I know this not only from research, but from first-hand direct involvement and contact with communists involved in covert, subversive activities. Ironically it wasn’t the pathetic Trotskyist group I was affiliated with, but scores of other communists that I interacted with within the broader group.

    “I have many friends who would consider themselves to be part of “the left,” and I don’t think any of them would agree that “whites are ‘privileged’ just by being white, so it’s okay to discriminate against them.””

    Ah, the “I have many friends” argument. How well do you know your friends? Some of them may believe that. If any of them are in college, especially in the social sciences or humanities, chances are they either believe just that, or are at least being taught it. They might even profess that it isn’t really “ok” – but don’t expect them to make a stink about it and have a sit-in or a protest or a flag-burning over it if it ever happens.

    “I don’t know anyone who does so out of a sense of “historical justice.””

    Have you asked?

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    “The debate over reparations has divided along racial lines. A 2002 opinion poll found that 80 percent of African Americans endorsed a formal apology for slavery from the U.S. government and 67 percent were in favor of monetary reparations. This contrasted sharply with white respondents; 30 percent of whites supported an apology while only 4 percent thought that monetary compensation was appropriate”

    Read more: Slavery – Reparations http://law.jrank.org/pages/10314/Slavery-REPARATIONS.html#ixzz0ocy68n8q

    I guarantee you that the 4 percent of whites are responsible for the education of thousands of university students every year.

  • Art Deco says:

    I’m with libertarian-leaning William Buckley on this issue (and most issues). The South needed the Civil Rights Act.

    The difficulty has been that statutes and regulations of that sort have not been limited to measures necessary to break the architecture of the Southern caste system or (more broadly) to peculiar practices outside the wharp and whoof of everyday social life. The number of suspect categories has multiplied well beyond the population who were systemically abused, conceptions of free association have been severely vitiated, and the autonomy and integrity of institutions has been compromised as they have been subject to social engineering schemes administered by the courts, by regulatory agencies, and by the educational apparat.

    Every time you pick up the newspaper and read of some employer being taken to court over an occupational test it administered, every time you read of some pipsqueak in the student affairs apparat banning the local evangelical fellowship from the campus, every time you read of wretched construction costs imposed on an agency to aid to 0.1% of its clientele who are in wheelchairs, every time you read of the local outfit of Catholic Charities being compelled to provide payment for abortions for its staff, you are seeing the metastatic aspect of civil rights legislation. We need to cut these cancers out.

    If you had wanted to break Southern caste regulations, your regulatory regime could have done the following, in the following order of priority:

    1. Provide for the imposition of trusteeships to supervise state and local police, courts, boards of elections, and civil service commissions;

    2. Provide for open enrollment in local school systems and state university systems;

    3. Provide for common access to all accommodations provided by public agencies, hoteliers, restauranteurs, miscellaneous retail merchants, and limited liability corporations which operate apartment complexes, with standing to sue limited to the domestic black population and the aboriginal population.

    The foregoing would have limited the protected categories to 13% of the population and addressed those areas of the common life where they faced peculiar disabilities. The impairment of the discretion of persons and small platoons could have been properly circumscribed.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Excellent points AD. Excellent.

    ” The number of suspect categories has multiplied well beyond the population who were systemically abused, conceptions of free association have been severely vitiated, and the autonomy and integrity of institutions has been compromised as they have been subject to social engineering schemes administered by the courts, by regulatory agencies, and by the educational apparat.”

    Absolutely!

  • Art Deco, you object to other legislation (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act) and judicial activism. To blame the Civil Rights Act for them is like blaming the Constitution for abortion rights.

    Your third point is precisely what the Pauls object to.

  • Anthony says:

    Sorry if this has been said since the discussion is already fairly long: but wasn’t segregation in part enacted by government? So how can taking an anti-government stance on the issue be construed as indifference to the problem of institutionalized racism?

    Doesn’t the existence of Jim Crow laws and the like recognize that under a condition of freedom people might actually converse with each other and start to get along; that they might even do business with each other? Heaven forbid we acknowledge that that is how REAL progress is made.

    How in the world can replacing forced separation with forced unity actually solve the problem of racism? Wouldn’t it just invite MORE resentment on the part of genuine racists and possibly create NEW racists who see the law as an abuse of power?

    I don’t understand why we can’t believe that if we simply removed racist laws and allowed people to live and work freely, society would heal itself naturally with God’s grace. Instead, the law seems to want us to believe that around every corner lie an evil, ignorant, possibly violent, racist and only the strong arm of the law can protect us.

    Who are the real racists? The people who use their property for their livelihoods, or the people obsessing over the lowest, basest deficiencies of the human heart?

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .