Category Archives: Elections

Update V: Son Of Ron For Senate (Civil Wrongs?)

Constitution, Elections, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Racism

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, endorsed his slick opponent, Trey Grayson, but he won “the Republican nomination for Senate from Kentucky.” He is Rand Paul, son of Ron.

The win “followed the defeat of an incumbent Republican senator, Robert Bennett of Utah, by conservative forces in that state. And it came after the recent decision by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida to drop out of the Republican primary for Senate in the face of a surge by a Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio.”

Not wishing to delve into the issues, and say unseemly, hick words such as “Constitution,” the New York Times has chalked the defeat of the establishment candidate to “A strong anti-Washington sentiment.” Of course they would.

Update I (May 19): “March with Martin Luther King, vote with Barry Goldwater.” Rand Paul vacillates about his opposition to the federal regulation of private property wrought by the Civil Wrong’s Act. This is the strict propertarian/libertarain position, apparently “repulsive” to mainstream America, claim NPR and RM. It cannot be denied that Rand Paul comes across as sour.

Part I

Part II

Update II (May 20): SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT, somewhat weakly, I think. Backing away from First Principles…

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years

“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”

“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.

“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.

“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

Update III: Civil Wrongs: When I allude to the Civil Rights Act, as I have every so often, it never occurs to me that for the reasoning advanced in these posts, I could be construed as a racist. Respectable scholars advance the same arguments: Richard A. Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 1995), and Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom: The Story of How Through The Centuries Private Ownership has Promoted Liberty and the Rule of Law (New York, 2000).

I guess what I’m struck by is the incredulity and the indignation the cable cretins are expressing at Paul’s pretty standard, if hard-core, libertarian position. Dare I say that the founders held similar, if not identical, views about the sanctity of private property?

Update IV: Howard Fineman is one of the most detestable journos. Here’s how he turns Rand Paul’s principled defense of private property into something dark and dreadful. This does not take skill, but a wicked sleight of hand:

“…Some of that old-time, race-based attitude—a Kentucky mix of romantic benevolence and cruel disdain (immortalized in D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation)—has seeped into the groundwater of the Tea Party. I attended one of its first rallies, in Louisville more than a year ago, and I saw on the ground some of the anti-busing elements of old there.

If Dr. Rand Paul doesn’t immediately apologize for holding his victory rally at a private club—and doesn’t abandon his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act—then he will not only pollute the Tea Party, he will severely damage the GOP’s chances of winning control of either the House or Senate this fall.”

Update V (May 21): Writes Richard Spencer at AltRight (but what, for heaven’s sake, is HBD?):

As revealed by the above video, Rand is a proponent of a sunny-side up, left-libertarian version of American history.

Racial discrimination within public institutions should be stamped out; discrimination in the private sector, however, probably should not be, as this would entail a prying federal government and likely violations of multiple Constitutional amendments. But never fear! Racial discrimination isn’t just immoral, it’s bad business, and if the government just gets out of the way, all non-economic discrimination will come to an end on its own.

Through Rand certainly goes further than any other politician in criticizing Civil Rights, there’s a lot wrong with his view.

The argument that private businesses are more profitable when they serve everyone is often correct, particularly in a mass consumer society — though one shouldn’t forget that value is ultimately subjective. An entrepreneur might be able to charge higher prices, and receive more personal satisfaction, by operating a restaurant that caters only to whites (or Jews or Chinese or Indians), and he should have the right to do so.

Of course, instances of businesses refusing service are exceedingly rare….

Updated: Palin’s Fiorina Frivoloty

Conservatism, Elections, John McCain, Military, Republicans, Sarah Palin

Perhaps Palin could not abide the fact that Chuck DeVore tempers his pro-military position with skepticism about intervention around the world. Perhaps, as a raving feminist, Palin feels obliged to support a woman over a man. And perhaps her endorsement of Carly Florina “in the GOP contest for the California Senate nomination” is just a bit of the same polite politics she played when campaigning for McMussolini:
 Palin knows Fiorina, “a top surrogate to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.”

Politico says “Fiorina recently warned against the ‘racist’ tone that has taken over the debate of Arizona’s new immigration law.” That’s the kind of Republican she is.

Whatever Palin is playing at, it is clear she goes with some mysterious flow—menstrual maybe?

DeVore has been called a “Tea Party darling” and a “most reliably Reaganesque representative.”

Update (May 10): The allusion to hormonal fluctuations was humor; meant not to be taken literally, but as a metaphor for Palin’s unreliable nature when it comes to liberty.

Libertarian Alliance Comment On UK Election Result

Britain, Democracy, Elections, libertarianism

Sean Gabb, Director of the UK Libertarian Alliance (he’s a friend), on the upshot of the elections in England:

“This was not a general election in which a distinctively libertarian force was likely to win power. There was also no chance of a win for traditionalist conservatives. We were not seriously consulted on the European Union, the American alliance, immigration, multiculturalism, drugs, due process civil liberties, the response to alleged man-made climate change, the dominance of big business corporatism, and many other issues of great importance. Instead, given the electoral system we have, we had a choice between difference emphases within a single consensus.

I chose to vote Conservative because, on balance, I believed that the Labour Party was the most likely to turn the country into a naked police state. I am glad that Labour lost. At the same time, I am glad that the Conservatives did not win an overall majority. Given that anything short of a huge and unmanageable majority would have given David Cameron all reason to suppose he was the Anointed One, a hung Parliament is the best outcome.

A Con-Lib pact or whatever sort will not address the issues mentioned above. But it probably will abolish identity cards and the database state that it fronts. It will probably not ‘regulate’ home education. It may rein in the Police and the bureaucracy. Even if the country does not become a better place, it may not grow worse as fast as it would under a Labour Government.

Above all, a majority Labour Government would have fixed the system to keep itself in power forever. It would have used its own creatures in the Police and the bureaucracy to harass and perhaps even to murder its opponents. A Con-Lib pact will do none of these things. It will allow a free and fair election at the end of its term, in which some distinctively libertarian or traditionalist force may have a better chance of making its voice heard.”

[SNIP]

Listen to Sean’s interview with the BBC against compulsory voting. Do you know anyone in the US who verbalizes and reasons as Sean does? On choosing to withhold the vote as a judgment:

“The people have looked at these three nauseous political parties and said, ‘None of the above.'” And, “I will do anything short of assassination to get rid of Gordon Brown as prime minister.”

We know what that feels like.

Brown Bastardgate

Barack Obama, Britain, Debt, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Politics

“He [Gordon Brown] was smiling when he spoke to me but he was thinking that! What else is he thinking when he smiles…” ~Gillian Duffy.

Remember when Obama was exposed in all his contempt for small-town America, depicting potential voters as clinging to their guns, god and other “bigotry”?

At least Obama was generalizing about a perceived prototype, and not badmouthing a flesh-and-blood human being; a constituent just encountered.

Trust Britain’s Gordon Brown with that bit of cruel, callous conduct.

People seem surprised that Brown would harbor contempt for the typical Briton revealed in the person of Gillian Duffy. After hearing Mrs. Duffy’s worries over deficits and immigration, the pompous, two-faced ponce retreated to his limousine, and mic on, proceeded to berate this perfectly decent lady, calling her “horrible,” “old woman,” and “bigoted.”

Poor woman; how hurt and shocked she looked when a reporter first confronted her with Brown’s wicked words.

When the real boor in this electioneering farce came calling, asking her to forgive him on camera, Mrs. Duffy refused to play along. She forgave the bastard as a kindly person would, but refused Gordon’s demand for a public display of affection.

A reminder of BHO’s disdain:

Mr Obama had, before an audience in the liberal bastion of San Francisco, tried to explain his trouble winning over white, working-class voters, the fabled “Reagan Democrats” who will be crucial in the general election.
He said: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”