The Glibertarian Tea Party Wing Under Scrutiny

21 May

What’s great about Rand Paul’s primary win in KY-Sen the other night is that he and his squishy political opinions are under greater scrutiny, as are those of his father, Ron.   Thanks to that scrutiny, the views of the local glibertarian wing of the tea party are – and ought be – under equal scrutiny.  As icing on the cake, Ron Paul‘s whiny reaction to this scrutiny reads right out of the playbook of noted glibertarian drama queen Jim Ostrowski.

[HTML1]

UPDATE:  Chris went in a similar direction, and asks some very specific questions of those who profess to be libertarians.

Here’s one:

Does government have the right to regulate air safety and maintenance, or should the people have the freedom to choose an airline that prides itself on lax standards but low prices?

38 Responses to “The Glibertarian Tea Party Wing Under Scrutiny”

  1. Lawrence C May 21, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    Many of Rand Paul’s defenders on this – including an African-American Tea Partier I know – aren’t thinking through, on what would actually happen in the Paul wants. The example Paul cites, and that is usually cited on this, is restaurants. But what if the suppliers to the restaurants decide they will not do business with restaurants to cater to all, or if not that, simply charge them more? Or, in Paul’s totally free public market, the restaurants who don’t want to serve ______s collude to pressure the suppliers to stop delivering to friendly restaurants?

    What about internet providers? What if all 2 internet providers accessible to you decided they aren’t going to serve you? Drugstores? Auto repair shops? Doctors?

    The market MAY level eventually (I doubt it, it didn’t over 120 years in the South – and the North), but only over the course of years, and in the meantime ______s will die, or have their lives so damaged their lives are cut short.

    Idiots.

  2. Rob May 21, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    By the way, Ron Paul (naturally) also believes the Civil Rights Act was wrong: “a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society”. He doesn’t explain why <a href=Jim Crow laws – which among many other things prohibited a restaurant owner from “freely contracting” with whites and blacks – were not much larger and indefensible violations of the rights of private property and contract.

    I realize that this is Kentucky and Rand Paul has a huge lead in early polling but I sincerely hope this ignorant piece of trash loses in November.

  3. Rob May 21, 2010 at 8:28 am #

    Sorry – this was the Jim Crow link I intended.

  4. STEEL May 21, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    Don’t you know that everything private business does is good and that private business always chooses the path that benefits the people most. It is government that forced child labor, caused the economic melt down and caused the oil spill. Those are just a few reminders of why we need government off the back of private industry.

  5. K-Y for Him May 21, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    New Buffalo commentary, without the sunny disposition:

    http://www.filthybuffalo.com

    Join filthy nation

  6. Ray May 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    I just knew I would find some ignorant smearists at Buffalo Pundit bloviating about this so-called civil rights controversy. Never miss an opportunity to smear the Tea Party movement and denigrate the concept of private property rights—am I correct boys?
    Of course there is nothing controversial about this debate in 2010 since this has been argued for decades by many.

    Thanks for the link Rob.
    “From Delaware to California, and from North Dakota to Texas, many states (and cities, too) could impose legal punishments on people for consorting with members of another race. The most common types of laws forbade intermarriage and ordered business owners and public institutions to keep their black and white clientele separated.”.

    The idea that any government could order a business owner to not service or treat differently certain customers based on their skin color or race was a violation of the private property rights of the business owner itself, Any business owner that even willfully discriminates without the force of law is an idiot anyway and only hurts his business since his competitors would grab at the opportunity to increase their buiness. It was bad enough that progressive governments institutionalized discrimination and racism in their own so-called public services, but when they forced equality in discrimination on all business owners, white or black with Jim Crow laws, that was interfering with the function of property rights in the free market. The solution of the left is and was the same thing in reverse with that little bit of reverse discrimination thrown into the mix.
    Left wing progressives have much in common with the right wing variety, mainly the way you both believe that you can mold society and the world artificially to your own vision of the way you think it should be by the force of law. And your long string of failures proves your commonality, your hatred of individual and economic liberty in the true sense. It’s no wonder you despise libertarians when they expose your defective history of accomplishments.

    • Alan Bedenko May 21, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

      Ray: objectively pro-Jim Crow

      • Mike In WNY May 21, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

        Alan: The Big Lie theory in practice.

      • Ray May 21, 2010 at 10:06 pm #

        Alan chooses to read but not comprehend, Alan chooses the straw man argument instead of debate, but it’s not about debate, it’s about the smear like I said. Alan like Maddow is only capable of subjective thinking when it comes to their progressive sacred cows. How dare anyone question the perfection of government law in forcing change in human behavior they don’t like.

      • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 1:47 am #

        equal rights for all Americans = “progressive sacred cows”

        Yeah, that’s about right. We progressives (and anyone else who has a shred of common decency) value the letter-law of our Constitution and the rights of all Americans to exist freely, without threat of initimidation or discrimination.

        What is your problem with the Constitution?

  7. Rob May 21, 2010 at 1:45 pm #

    I just knew . . . .

    That’s nice. Any I just knew that you or another of the Freener swarm would come here eventually and say exactly what you just said, especially the accusation of a “smear” job – your favorite word to describe people actually discussing your stupid ideas.

    In any case, Rand Paul stuck to his libertarian principles on the Civil Rights Act for about 24 hours; he now says he would have voted for it, and for giving the federal government power to enforce it. Must be very disappointing to the Paulians.

    • Mike In WNY May 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm #

      “smear” doesn’t refer to a discussion, it refers to the baseless, uninformed accusations.

    • Rob May 21, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

      You’ve already admitted that it’s still a “smear” (in Freener-speak) even if it’s true, so nice try with “baseless”.

      Rand Paul has now called Obama’s criticism of BP “un-American”.

      PAUL-PALIN 2012!! Unite the tribes!

      • Ray May 21, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

        Of course it’s un-American, unless you believe America should be an authoritarian dictatorship.
        Rand Paul didn’t criticize Obama, he criticized the president’s administration, particularly Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who said “”Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum.”. Of course you liberals love the idea of putting the boot on the neck of anybody you deem unworthy, Big government to the rescue! Save us, smite the enemy with your big fat boot and venomous mouth to match!

      • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 1:34 am #

        Hey Ray – BP is currently responsible for a massive gusher of thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico that they could have prevented with a half-million dollar safety valve. However, government regulation wasn’t in place and they were free to install a faulty rig and compound their gaffe with laughable strategies (golf balls?) until the Federal Government had to step in to correct their shit.

        Step on their necks? We should hang them by their bloody balls for their enormous cock-up!

      • Mike In WNY May 22, 2010 at 9:03 am #

        Eric, the oil spill might, not could, have been prevented or much money might have been wasted complying with government regulations. BP did nothing illegal and I doubt they built the oil rig thinking that it would result in a massive leak.

  8. Rob May 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    And the “lefties hate freedom” blah blah blah. I’m mildly surprised there was no Robert Byrd reference but then we haven’t heard from hank yet.

  9. Jon Splett May 22, 2010 at 12:14 am #

    ….Ron Paul named his kid after Ayn Rand?

    Why am I not surprised.

  10. Ray May 22, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    Another dopey liberal comment, Was that intended as some kind of smear too?
    His full name is Randal Howard Paul.

    • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 1:36 am #

      let’s hope none of his children are named Galt

  11. Mike in WNY May 22, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    Food for thought – If you were a black person (or insert favorite whatever), would you rather spend your money in a restaurant that serves you because the government says it has to, or spend it in a restaurant that wants to serve you?

    • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 11:30 am #

      If you were a black person in Montgomery, Alabama in 1958, would you rather get your head bashed in by sitting at the lunch counter at Woolworths because NO restaurants will seat you with white people or would you look to the Federal Government to overrule the segregationist state governments to strike down Jim Crow laws and defend your right to exist in a free society?

      • Mike in WNY May 22, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

        You didn’t answer the question.  Instead you changed the facts to a situation that doesn’t exist to suit your agenda.  No one here is advocating the reinstatement of Jim Crow laws, that was the failure of government.

    • Alan Bedenko May 22, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

      Mike, it must be remarkably convenient and comfortable for a German from the northern half of the US to posit hypothetical questions about racism suffered by black people at the hands of the white majority.  Not just under Jim Crow, but historically throughout the history of the United States.  

      It was federal legislation and court action, as well as private demonstration, boycotts, rebellion, and action, which finally put the nail in the coffin of “separate but equal”.  You can offhandedly dismiss Jim Crow as a “failure of government”, but that status quo was also a fundamental failure of humanity.  Your ideology presupposes that people will act only in their own self-interests and not “do violence” to others by force, which is your common but faulty synonym for “under color of law”.

      The thing about it is that our society – our government, which is elected by the people to represent them – decided some 40+ years ago that racial discrimination will not be tolerated.  There is nothing there to defend – the right of someone to be a racist fuck in his own home is inviolable and sacred.  The right of someone to be a racist fuck to others in a place of business is not protected in any way.  To the contrary, the public policy against ignorant base racism outweighs the private right of a shopkeeper to refuse to serve Negroes.  

      To use your own tired argument, if the shopkeeper doesn’t like the idea of serving blacks, he is free to not open his shop.  If he wants to open his shop, it must be open to all.  It’s quite a simple, modern, civilized principle.  One that really isn’t controversial anywhere in this country, except in the minds of the self-centered, selfish, anachronistic ideologues like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim Ostrowski – people from a certain post-war generation that was and is convinced of its own exceptionalism and entitlement to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want as long as it pleases them.  From free love to the me generation to 80s greed to the glibertarian tea parties, we see a distinct path and pattern with a common thread of selfishness.  That this ideology smears onto younger generations isn’t surprising because it’s so seductive and simplistic.  

      So no, in this country we don’t have to ask whether a black person should want to shop where he’s wanted, versus shopping where he isn’t wanted, but is forced to be served under color of law.  In this country, black people walking into a luncheonette are to be treated no differently from white people walking into a luncheonette, and the law demands and requires this.  

      Tough shit for the racists.  Win for civilized society. 

      • Mike in WNY May 22, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

        The problem with your law to achieve the perfect society is that discrimination only legally occurs in many cases if the intent is there.  Two people can do the exact same thing, within the context of parts of the Civil Rights Act, and one can be legal and the other illegal.  In essence, since intent is intangible in many case, the government now has the power to persecute its perceived enemies with fictitious charges of discrimination.

        Essentially, we have rectified government created discriminatory Jim Crow laws by replacing it with a government law that can be used to invent illegal discrimination.  Not only that, but business owners often follow a repugnant course of action out of the fear of prosecution.

      • Alan Bedenko May 22, 2010 at 9:26 pm #

        Two paragraphs to say absolutely nothing substantive. The Civil Rights Act undid centuries’ worth of systematic socio-economic, political racism and bigotry. The free market enabled Southern shopkeepers to exclude blacks for being black. The courts and state laws decreed that to be legal. The duly elected representatives of the people enacted legislation to end that discrimination.

        That there are people in 2010 arguing that this was a bad thing is astonishing.

    • Jon Splett May 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

      The world is hardly that simple.

      I’d probably be more concerned about the quality of the food I was buying than the racial motives of the guy selling it to me.

      If restaurant A has fantastic food and won’t serve blacks and restaurant B has okay food but doesn’t hate blacks, should I eat a lower quality of food because I’m black? I know you’ll try and come back with some bullshit about the market creating a restaurant with fantastic food and that doesn’t hate blacks but lets say I’m an affluent black man living in a racist white community. There’s a very good chance the market won’t support an expensive, pro-black restaurant. So what’s my remedy in this situation? I get to eat worse food?

      Arguing against equal rights, something the Constitution (you know that document you all constantly say you have this big hard on for?) grants just exposes the Libertarians as the bitter, quasi-racist, political Aspergers cases they are.

  12. Ray May 22, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    BP: “There is nothing there to defend – the right of someone to be a racist fuck in his own home is inviolable and sacred. The right of someone to be a racist fuck to others in a place of business is not protected in any way.”

    Love that conveniently concocted blurred distintincion between what is “publiic” and what is “private”.
    So….your home is private property because you own it and it’s your business what you do with it, not the government, but your business which is also private property, you have no right to do what you want.with it, and the government can regulate you. Wondeful two-faced and hypocritical argument Alan.
    If I use the same progressive logic, then this blog which is privately owned is really a public place because anybody in cyberspace can enter and take a look around. So your busybody government would have the right to regulate your activities (speech) and of course make sure you are not discriminating against anyone in anyway. You’d probably love that Alan.
    Of course the authoritarian leftist loony’s in DC are actually working on that now, if you haven’t heard.
    The libertarian perspective is and alway has been that if you allow the government to violate someones private property rights, no matter how righteous or innocuous you think it is, you have created a precedent for all kinds of future property rights violation evils to come at you.

    • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 6:34 pm #

      And the cavalcade of shopworn Libertarian arguments in defense of segregation and discrimination against minorities continues….

      Restaurants may be private property, but they are also places of public accomodation. The primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public (just as a hotel’s is to provide rooms), which requires compliance with equal protection laws. Just because a restaurant is “private property” does not give it license to refuse to serve the public based on arbitrary, or racial, reasons. Refusal of service is justified if the patron is unruly or poses a reasonable threat to the safety, welfare and well-being of the restaurant and the other patrons. DWB (Dining While Black) is not a justified rationale for refusal of service. Ask Denny’s.

      The Libertarian perspective, as far as I can see is “I got mine….fuck you”.

      • Mike in WNY May 22, 2010 at 8:06 pm #

        Eric, you clearly don’t understand the libertarian position.  It has nothing to do with supporting discrimination and segregation.  It is about preventing governmental abuses of power with respect to individuals and property rights.

      • Alan Bedenko May 22, 2010 at 9:23 pm #

        It is about preventing governmental abuses of power with respect to individuals and property rights

        At the expense of the basic civil right of individuals to not be discriminated against based on race.

      • Ray May 22, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

        Can I discriminate against liberal white boys from Clarence?

      • Eric Saldanha May 22, 2010 at 11:56 pm #

        Why not? It’s clear you already discriminate against reason, fairness and respect for the Constitution.

      • Alan Bedenko May 23, 2010 at 7:49 am #

        Are liberal white boys from Clarence a constitutionally protected class, or are you just being a petulant mental toddler who quite clearly has become unable further to defend his ridiculous political ideology only two or three queries in?

      • Ray May 22, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

        It’s in their self interest to not understand. Again, it’s all about the smear to them, that’s why they keep smearing over and over agan. They can’t even admit that private property is private property regardless of what the owner uses it for, that the owner is the ruler of his domain no matter where his head is at. .

    • Alan Bedenko May 22, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

      Your home is not open to the general public. A store is.

  13. Rob May 23, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    Ray can’t grasp why a business open to the general public is different from a private residence? Quite the public policy genius there.

  14. hank May 24, 2010 at 3:20 am #

    I’ve got no dog in this. I do see 2 things.
    1. The “Sicilian Thing” between BP and the Freeners, including JO continues.
    2. After 2 trips through WV in less than 48 hours, Is there anything built with a Government dollar NOT named after Robert C Byrd? There ya go. Comments can be made without getting personal.

Leave a Reply to hank Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: