Rand Paul's Libertarianism and its Consequences

Kentucky GOP Senatorial nominee Rand Paul appeared on Rachel Maddow's show last night on MSNBC and discussed his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act on libertarian grounds (e.g. the federal government does not have the right to prohibit discriminatory policies in private businesses however abhorrent such policies may be). Their discussion drew much response including this eloquent comment from conservative blogger and former Reagan budget official Bruce Bartlett.

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan makes a related point on The Daily Dish.

Worse, Paul's entirely abstract intellectual argument wrests pure principles out of an actual society, with actual historical atrocities, violence, oppression and contempt. That's why I cannot be a libertarian the way some others like Paul are. I do not believe you can reify an abstraction like liberty and separate it from the context - historical, cultural, moral - in which it lives and breathes and from which it emerged. I can believe in freedom and believe in equality of opportunity but I should be mature enough to see when there has to be a compromise between the two - and decide. On the issue of race in America, the libertarian right was proven wrong - morally, empirically wrong. Giving up the ancient and real freedom to discriminate was worth it - indeed morally and politically necessary for America to regain its soul.

Hear, hear. I find it hard to argue with libertarianism in a purely abstract theoretical discussion. As Jefferson said, the government that governs best governs least. However, we don't live in an abstract theoretical world and public policy choices have real and often unintended consequences. I don't know if Rand Paul is a racist. But, it is historic fact that many racists used similar (states' rights) arguments to defend racist policies.

I was also pleased that this discussion took place in a public forum and generated the degree of public response that it has. However kooky and potentially dangerous some libertarian policies may be, the underlying philosophy is worthy of serious consideration as liberal blogger Josh Marshall notes on Talking Points Memo.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy rooted in a belief in radical limitations on state power. And I'm inclined to follow my friend Mike Lind's argument that unlike a lot of mishmash conservative claptrap libertarianism is a political philosophy I can disagree with but still recognize as internally consistent and rooted in important principles.

This is democracy in action, folks. You make your case, I make mine and then we put it to a vote. I will follow the Kentucky Senatorial race with a great deal of interest.

--Ballard Burgher