The Rand Paul kerfuffle

It is amazing how in three days so much has been written about Rand Paul and his statement about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here is one of the best I've read yet:

Even if Mr. Paul was speaking out of a principled belief in the rights of voluntary association, he was wrong on the Constitutional and historic merits. The Civil Rights Act of 1964—and its companion laws, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965—were designed to address abuses of state and local government power. The Jim Crow laws that sprang up in the South after Reconstruction and prevailed for nearly a century were not merely the result of voluntary association. Discrimination—public and private—was enforced by police power and often by violence.

In parts of the mid-20th-century South, black men were lynched, fire hoses and vicious dogs were turned on children, and churches were bombed with worshippers inside. By some accounts, two-thirds of the Birmingham, Alabama, police force in the early 1960s belonged to the Ku Klux Klan. State and local government officials simply refused to acknowledge the civil rights of blacks and had no intention of doing so unless outside power was brought to bear.

The federal laws of that era were necessary and legal interventions to remedy the unconstitutional infringement on individual rights by state and local governments. On Thursday Mr. Paul finally acknowledged this point when he told CNN, "I think there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention."

One tragedy of that era is that the frequent use of "states rights" arguments to defend Jim Crow discredited those arguments for decades and eased the way for federal intrusions on state power that really are unconstitutional.

Here is another one.

Contending that only government power saved us from slavery and Jim Crow, it ignores the role of private power – the abolitionists, and the civil rights movement – that brought about that government power. More important, it invites us to believe that government had little or nothing to do with slavery and Jim Crow in the first place when in truth we would have had neither without government’s creation of those legal institutions, with legal sanctions that kept them in place. Indeed, it is limited government, government limited to securing our rights, that is the surest guarantee against those twin evils.

Comment: If Paul had explained the historical fact that it was government power (in this case, state power) that knuckled private businesses to impose a racist law they did not want, he would have weakened the liberal notion that if private businesses are left to their own devices that they will certainly all be discriminatory. That is simply not the case. Jim Crow was state sanctioned racism. It is a historical fact that private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied hard against the Jim Crow laws. After the law was passed, they unsuccessfully challenged the law in court. These private businesses also implemented the law very sporadically in the beginning until some employees and even management were threatened with jail time if they didn't stop ignoring the law.

Private business did not want Jim Crow.

With friends like these...

The difference between Liberals and Libertarians (like myself) is that Liberals really believe that government can be a vehicle for progress in that it can, by the dint of its scope and power, help people achieve economic prosperity, equality, and fairness. Conservatives and libertarians, on the other hand, are suspicious of concentrated power and view government as prologue to abuse of power. The latest escapade regarding the "bailout" bill is a prime example. Our government has written up a bill, now law, that would drive any fiscal conservative batty. There are so many bells and whistles in the "bailout" that temerity itself could not explain the boldness that it took to write it and then vote to pass it. Yet another example of how anything that is dealt by our government amounts to largesse, bureaucracy, and fickle solutions.

From National Review Online:

It is no coincidence that the Senate passed its economic bailout bill in a package containing unrelated legislation and special-interest tax breaks. This is an important lesson about how Washington works that is seldom mentioned in the debate over “earmarks,” if these tax provisions can be called that. For in addition to the common objections to earmarks — the wasteful nature of many of them, and the climate of disrespect for taxpayers that they create — it is also important to remember that earmarks grease the skids for bad or unpopular legislation.

“They’re trying to buy off members,” says conservative Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R., Minn.), who spoke to me on Thursday afternoon, ahead of the House’s expected Friday vote. “I think this sort of thing leads to cynicism on the part of the public. It demonstrates the crassness of Washington, the out-and-out vote-buying that happens when leadership feels a bill has to pass. It’s a bit troubling to think that someone would throw out the concept of free markets for the sake of wooden arrows.”

The Free Market’s imagery problem

Free-market advocates are notoriously terrible at creating positive mass media propaganda to further its idea’s. The Left has developed a great talent at pulling the heart strings with very good results. The following observation is made by Joseph Packer:

Modern-day statists seem incredibly adept at commanding the attention of the public. Have you ever noticed how there exists an unending stream of documentaries criticizing the free market? Roger and Me, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices, This Is What Democracy Looks Like, and Sicko are some of the titles that immediately pop to mind. I can’t remember ever seeing a libertarian documentary being widely promoted, despite the fact that libertarians make up roughly 13 percent of the American population, according to research by David Boaz and David Kirby.

Is there an American over the age of 25 who does not remember the terrible images from the Exxon Valdez oil spill? These images evoke strong anti-corporate feelings even though the company has now spent over $3 billion to alleviate the environmental impacts and has paid restitution to the affected fishing industry.

How many individuals have seen pictures, much less heard of, the Milwaukee disaster? Over 400 times as much pollution was knowingly dumped in Lake Michigan in 2004 by local governments that understood they would not be held accountable. Americans have been inundated with pictures of melting icecaps, but have they seen pictures of the children starving because of our energy policies? Numerous studies show that government policies pushing ethanol as a solution to global warming act to raise food prices, leaving the world’s poorest to starve. This on top of the fact that most scientists believe the corn ethanol being pushed by the government will have no effect on warming. Many Americans have been confronted with images of children working in factories; however, they do not see the images of the 5,000 Nepalese girls forced into prostitution because of U.S. trade sanctions against child labor. These facts are not secret, but their lack of visual presence means they are all but invisible to most Americans. (Read The Entire Article)

There has been over the last number of years an acceptable move to more government oversight and regulation by the general public and a doting Washington establishment; in the false hope that stricter government oversight will equate less volatility, less malfeasant behavior, and generally a safer world. But as Mr. Packer notes above, more government oversight does not necessarily lead to its purported results.

Ronald Reagan on Libertarianism

Ronald Reagan speaking in a 1975 interview with Reason magazine:

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories, The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

“Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.”