Well.
I’m thinking that “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” has brought us a nearly universal display of cowardice from the RE.net. If I am mistaken in this, I will happily amend my error with a link and a courtly bow. But I expect there is even more room for quivering, quibbling, cowering, caviling cowardice on this fine and perfect day.
Like this: The position Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul took on property rights yesterday is correct — not just as regards property rights, but as an expression of the errors we need to correct in the body politic if we are to reemerge, eventually, as something resembling a civilized society.
The left is attempting to smear Paul as a racist for insisting that private property owners themselves have the moral authority to be racists, even if Paul and virtually everyone else find that position to be morally-repugnant. This Two-Minutes-Hate campaign doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me, in the age of the internet. The left will have no trouble finding reasons to hate Rand Paul, but his own tea party admirers may find in his principled arguments even more cause to admire him.
But mainstream Republicans are in full-reverse mode, backing away from Paul as quickly as they can. This seems to me to be a mistake. The tea party movement is an artifact of the age of the internet. At the least, tea partiers check up on the things they are told by the mainstream media. And it seems plausible to me that many of those folks are aware that the United States has been pursuing the wrong policies — as a matter of philosophy — since the end of the nineteenth century, at least. Anyone seeking greater human liberty has to regard this present moment as an incredible opportunity to get ordinary Americans thinking about ideas they might never have considered before. For Republicans to race away from the actual philosophy of liberty seems to me to be hugely stupid.
So let’s start here: Racism is by far the stupidest and most morally-repugnant form of collectivism. This is completely obvious to any thoughtful individualist, but what’s missing in America — the deficiency that has robbed the body politic of its once-robust good health — is a serious if not terminal shortage of thoughtful individualists. Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act is exactly right: No government should ever favor one citizen over another, but individual people have complete moral authority over their own behavior, subject to post hoc claims of damages.
So suppose the morally-repugnant hate-mongering racist minister Jeremiah Wright decides to form a club with the morally-repugnant anti-semitic racist Jesse Jackson and the morally-repugnant socialist racist Al Sharpton and the morally-repugnant islamo-fascist-wannabe racist Louis Farrakhan. Would they have the moral authority to exclude me, as a white devil? Why not? Let’s make it a no-whites-allowed night-club — just to get the quivering, quibbling, cowering, caviling cowardice out of the way — since the restrictions on businesses in the Civil rights Act were putatively authorized by the commerce clause to the U.S. Constitution. Can you think of any reason why flagrant, blatant, notorious black racists should not be free to dance and drink only with their own chosen associates, excluding me utterly, without naming their reasons and without my having any recourse at law?
I think this would be their perfect right — even though they don’t need to go to these lengths to get me to detest and ridicule their ugly racism. But this is the consequence of the portions of the Civil Rights Act that impose obligations on private citizens. Yes, racism by merchants in the Jim Crow south was ugly and abhorrent and repugnant — and you might think for a moment about how those folks might have taken to me, had I been alive there and then. But pushing innocent people around at gunpoint is far worse, and the loss of freedom for all Americans as a result of this coercive philosophy of government has had devastating consequence upon all of us — with black Americans by far getting the worst of everything from the perpetually-infantilizing pretend-benevolence of the welfare state.
As soon as you say — upon any pretext whatever — that one person has an unearned, unnegotiated, nonconsensual claim on another person’s property, you have undermined private property as a standard of human justice and enshrined that pretext, whatever it might be, instead. As a species of irrationality, racism is a very poor profit-seeking strategy, but that does not matter. What matters is that the absolute right to own, use, enjoy, profit from and sell private property is a fundamental principle of human justice. Free commerce is based in rational agreements among free people. Any alternative, no matter what it is, is necessarily corrupt, leading, as now, to sustained pressure group warfare and ultimately to full-blown civil war. There are only two ways to coordinate human activity: Peaceful cooperation or bloody coercion. When you undermine the former, you enshrine the latter as a matter of unavoidable necessity.
Far from shunning these philosophical arguments, lovers of human liberty must embrace them. America stepped off the path of individual liberty a long time ago. To get back to where we were, we have no choice but to retrace our steps. Republicans don’t want to do this because they don’t want to admit in public that all of socialism is evil, that it is nothing other than a criminal conspiracy to despoil people engaged in morally-laudable behavior in behalf of morally-repugnant people of all races, creeds, colors and persuasions.
That’s a mistake.
We’ll have to wait to see what the mainstream media does to Rand Paul. I expect it won’t be pretty, but I’m hoping it won’t be effective, either. But at least Paul is willing to tell the American people the whole truth, instead of trying to work them and play them and manipulate in the way the Republican party always has.
Brian Brady says:
Rand Paul was right; racism is abhorrent (his word), bad business, and has no place in civilized society. Paul’s faux pas is that he naively thought people might look beyond the 20-second sound bite, understand private property rights and what the first amendment means.
The Democrats will gang-bang Rand Paul with this and his opposition to the Americans With Disabilities Act. You’re comment about Republicans is (unfortunately) correct; they will avoid him like the plague rather than explaining why the Civil Rights Act and Americans With Disabilities Act was bad law. That’s a shame because America needs a damned good civics lesson.
Rand Paul might have gotten farther if he asked the interviewer if business owners have a legal right to hold nightly flag-burning ceremonies before he answered the Civil Rights question.
I’m not understanding the comment about “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day”. I thought your entry was not only funny but honest. Give people a shot at prosperity and their tolerance for people who think differently rises.
May 20, 2010 — 11:10 pm
Greg Swann says:
I haven’t looked at RE.net blogs in a year, really two years. But I looked today to see if any of those wankers had any guts. None that I saw. I welcome contradiction.
As for Ran Paul, I think the more the kleptocracy tries to denounce him, the greater his impact. His argument is not new to libertarians, so there are plenty of posts like mine tonight. But we can explain ourselves in great detail to people who are sick to death of being called racists, people who, not coincidentally, are more and more immune to the Rotarian Socialist propaganda machine. A doubt borne of anger and resentment is not the ideal doubt, but you can only change minds when they’re open to change. The decadent, gutless Marxists we’re up against may be surprised to discover what the people they so obviously despise are doing on the internet.
Meme liberty. It may not work right away, but the traffic at the border is all one way — liberals and conservative become libertarians, but libertarians understand the issues too well to betray freedom once they understand it. This augurs victory eventually, even if not right away.
May 20, 2010 — 11:39 pm
Benjamin Ficker says:
I understand (and agree with) what you Paul, and you, are saying regarding racism. But I’m about to play the other side here…
I think (most of) our country is at a place where if someone could be racist (property rights, etc) they would recognize that it is morally repugnant and would not pursue it. But if those civil rights acts in question never occurred, do you think that our country would have evolved to this mentality, where we KNOW racism is morally repugnant? If you’ve seen the movie Idiocracy, you might see where I am going here. I think that stupid people tend to raise more stupid people. And their racial bias’s influence their children to believe the same, or worse.
What I am incoherently trying to say is that most people have it pounded into them that it is morally wrong to treat another human being differently because of the color of their skin or their sexual orientation. But would that have come about it racism was given the free pass (without the civil rights acts, etc.)?
Just a thought I would love to hear you guys discuss…
BTW, I understand this question can never really be answered because there is no way to go back and see how the people of this country would have turned out in another scenario…
May 20, 2010 — 11:47 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Meme liberty.”
That’s the answer. I took that advice from you and it has made the difference. Tea party patriots are like sponges, soaking up more and more of this meme. I still remember you telling me “well, you have never lived in a truly free society”, in Florida, and it stung like a punch to the head. Then, you ‘helped me up” by explaining the merits of a voluntary society and my eyes lit up.
How do you eat an elephant, Greg? One bite at a time.
May 21, 2010 — 7:13 am
GenuineChris Johnson says:
I live in ohio. And I live where racism is very real and very present–between all races. People are comfortable saying “coon,” in open company at Ohio State University, and there’s no blowback for it. “What can you do, he’s a hick,” is about the worst it gets.
I dig that Rand wants to tell the truth, but you’ve got to be smart about it.
Milton Friedman was smart about it. Ayn Rand was not.
May 21, 2010 — 8:24 am
Greg Swann says:
> I dig that Rand wants to tell the truth, but you’ve got to be smart about it.
Any sort of “qualified” truth is a lie, Chris. You’re either dealing with the elephant in the room or your trying to deny that it’s there. There is no middle. Temporizing about freedom works only to the advantage of the slave-masters.
> Milton Friedman was smart about it. Ayn Rand was not.
Goog grief, man. Look around you. We’re seeing an unprecedented flowering of libertarian arguments everywhere. Milton Friedman is not the cause of these remarkable events.
This is Ayn Rand from The Anatomy of Compromise:
That particular paragraph informs most of my contributions to BloodhoundBlog, BTW.
May 21, 2010 — 10:03 am
Teri Lussier says:
>But if those civil rights acts in question never occurred, do you think that our country would have evolved to this mentality, where we KNOW racism is morally repugnant?
Paul didn’t argue against the entire Civil Rights Act, simply the part that addresses private property and businesses. He absolutely and repeatedly agreed that government controlled property and services should be free to all citizens.
“Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” felt like a goofy stunt like “Blog Silence Day” or “Green Blog Day” or whatever the blog meme of the month happens to be. I think I participated in that once, very early in my blog, and it felt so disingenuous that I gave myself permission (freedom) to never have to participate again.
It was stunning to hear Dr Rand Paul talk so clearly about libertarian ideas and philosophy. He’s remarkable in that he’s the first politician I’ve seen who, apparently, lives these words, I think, as a kind and gentle man, who loves his life, his fellow man, and his country. These ideas of liberty for all people are outside of mainstream media, but are what some of us understand to our bones and to see this very eloquently stated is refreshing and offers hope for the future of the country.
May 21, 2010 — 9:13 am
Greg Swann says:
> Paul didn’t argue against the entire Civil Rights Act, simply the part that addresses private property and businesses.
I think this is Benjamin’s question, paraphrased: Absent federal coercion, would private merchants have amended their bad behavior voluntarily?
First, much of segregation was itself mandated by state laws, so there’s no telling how people would have acted, without that coercion. But free markets penalize discretionary irrationality. The market cost of irrationality — of any flavor — will tend to cause entrepreneurs to moderate their public behavior, even if they retain their private prejudices.
On the other side of the equation, the primary purpose of the welfare state is to inhibit capital formation, thus limiting the market power of the putative beneficiaries. The goal is not to eradicate irrationality but to enshrine it.
By contrast, a free market penalizes ignorance, rewards wisdom and bankrupts anyone who obstinately refuses to learn better.
There’s more to this, because state-mandated racism is just one pike in the Rotarian Socialist bundle of fasces — the Latin root of the word fascism. But the real question is, what happens now? If the Commerce Clause were repealed (or at least reinterpreted to apply only to taxes an tariffs applied by one state against another, its original intent), would merchants suddenly feel themselves free to express their racism? Perhaps some would. Do you believe Jeremiah Wright would not?
But: Who cares? If we are free, then we are free to be in error. Big deal. I certainly don’t lack alternatives, and I’ll be damned if I would give a penny to Jeremiah Wright in any case.
Where people are free to make their own choices — and to conserve and cultivate their own capital — no one would be losing out on anything. The biggest crime against black Americans since emancipation was not the Jim Crow laws but the so-called “War on Poverty.” By making it almost impossible for black entrepreneurs to accumulate investment capital, the state has created a plantation far more insidious — and far more difficult to escape — than the ones we got rid of in the Civil War.
Bottom line: If we stop pushing people around at gunpoint, will some of them still be ignorant jackasses? Yeah, sure. But who cares? They won’t matter, just as every other kind of fringe idiots don’t matter.
May 21, 2010 — 9:47 am
Teri Lussier says:
>I think this is Benjamin’s question, paraphrased: Absent federal coercion, would private merchants have amended their bad behavior voluntarily?
I see. I saw a lot of blowback that made sweeping accusations about Paul and that he was against the Civil Right Act, which isn’t at all what he said.
>Who cares? If we are free, then we are free to be in error.
That’s what many people can’t abide. We aren’t allowed to be free to be wrong, or jackasses, but we can’t be fully glorious either.
May 21, 2010 — 10:57 am
Teri Lussier says:
Chris-
I live in Ohio too and it’s not okay to spew racist remarks.
The city of Dayton is about 50% black. We work hard, not always successfully I’m sure, but we try to maintain acceptance of everyone. This is not PC-speak. It’s not a perfect smooth-running rainbow coalition here by any means, but we have found that it’s more productive in all facets of life to get along. It makes life easier.
May 21, 2010 — 11:10 am