Is Rand Paul nutty?

[MaGZ]

In your opinion is Rand Paul nutty?

Is it him personally or his libertarian philosophy?

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Rand Paul Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't.

 

[rustypouch]

Yes.

 

[willhaven]

I think it's his strict adherence to libertarian philosophy. He seems to refuse to recognize that the government can step in and regulate/legislate to make things better than the free market can do in some instances.

His stance on the civil rights act was pretty laughable. If the free market would end segregation on its own, we wouldn't have had segregation issues to begin with.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

His stance on the civil rights act was pretty laughable. If the free market would end segregation on its own, we wouldn't have had segregation issues to begin with.

(to the OP: Yeah. Pretty much.)

To the quoted part: I think a purely theoretical argument could be made that the market would eventually (there's the key word) end segregation, just as economics would have eventually (see a theme?) ended slavery. But the problem is how long can a people wait for that kind of a solution when you are talking about essential liberties. And most people rightly would not be willing to wait to see if it all worked out. Theory is nice and all, but it is *only* theory.

 

[lomiller]

(to the OP: Yeah. Pretty much.)

To the quoted part: I think a purely theoretical argument could be made that the market would eventually (there's the key word) end segregation, just as economics would have eventually (see a theme?) ended slavery. But the problem is how long can a people wait for that kind of a solution when you are talking about essential liberties. And most people rightly would not be willing to wait to see if it all worked out. Theory is nice and all, but it is *only* theory.

You could also construct a purely theoretical argument that the earth is the center of the universe. The problem in both cases is that reality doesn’t support the theoretical argument and there are better theoretical arguments that are supported by reality. We call such arguments nutty and the people who subscribe to them are nutty by extension.

 

[Suddenly]

(to the OP: Yeah. Pretty much.)

To the quoted part: I think a purely theoretical argument could be made that the market would eventually (there's the key word) end segregation, just as economics would have eventually (see a theme?) ended slavery. But the problem is how long can a people wait for that kind of a solution when you are talking about essential liberties. And most people rightly would not be willing to wait to see if it all worked out. Theory is nice and all, but it is *only* theory.

That, and segregation was a political problem, not an economic one. Saying the free market would fix it is a nonsense claim. It is like saying communism would cure a cold.

The law required, or let thugs and corrupt government officials require, segregation and related horrors. Until those laws were done away with, and laws preventing thuggary were put in place and enforced, segregation would exist. The states wouldn't do it, so the feds did.

The real debate is whether the feds were right to step in or should have let everything go on until the states doing this stuff decided what they were doing was wrong. I go with the former.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

That, and segregation was a political problem, not an economic one. Saying the free market would fix it is a nonsense claim. It is like saying communism would cure a cold.

I wouldn't go that far. Failing to use the best employees, for example, simply because of race would lead to economic disadvantage. Many types of economic decisions - sales, purchasing, empoyment, etc. relate directly to the question of segregation.

A true believer in 'Big L' Libertarianism could well make that same type of argument without being pedal-to-te-metal insane. To the extent a difference exists, anyway.

I think he or she would be ultimately (and wildly) wrong, but not necessarily crazy. I think Rand Paul qualifies as nutty with or without any such coments, hwever, so I don't know how important the distinctions are, ultimately.

 

[Skeeve]

Is water wet?

 

[willhaven]

(to the OP: Yeah. Pretty much.)

To the quoted part: I think a purely theoretical argument could be made that the market would eventually (there's the key word) end segregation, just as economics would have eventually (see a theme?) ended slavery. But the problem is how long can a people wait for that kind of a solution when you are talking about essential liberties. And most people rightly would not be willing to wait to see if it all worked out. Theory is nice and all, but it is *only* theory.

Pure libertarianism is great in theory. Pure communism is great in theory. Pure capitalism is also great in theory.

In practice, they all have gaping holes where the worst parts of human nature can flourish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it's his strict adherence to libertarian philosophy. He seems to refuse to recognize that the government can step in and regulate/legislate to make things better than the free market can do in some instances.

His stance on the civil rights act was pretty laughable. If the free market would end segregation on its own, we wouldn't have had segregation issues to begin with.

This is the same thing that happened when I brought up the Libertarian Party platform in another forum long long ago. When you ask hard core Libertarians to carry their thoughts through to the logical outcome, they fumble the ball.

Rand Paul couldn't discuss what happens when you are extreme in your view of private property rights and it results in allowing Woolworth's owners to refuse to serve blacks at their lunch counters. He ran from the question instead of thinking through his extreme free market position.

If you don't think your extremism through, as in Paul's case, you stay in your fantasy world where the free market is the answer to all the world's woes.