Rand Paul, the "Tea Party" candidate has won the republican nomination for U.S Senate in Kentucky. Like his father, Ron Paul, he is a libertarian that used the republican ticket to help him get elected-this country is still in the dark when it comes to voting for anyone other than a republican or democrat. When I heard of this news, I personally was excited. Finally a senator that I can get behind. I mean, he's a libertarian so I should back him 100%, right? Well not after I saw this video of him getting grilled by Rachel Maddow:
Now don't get me wrong: his stance on private ownership is a true libertarian one. And I would support his view even though no one in this country wants to go back to the 1950's where we had signs outside businesses that banished certain groups from entering. The problem with Rand Paul is that he selectively chose this issue to have an extreme view on. After reading an article by David Saltonstall (link to the article below, I discovered where Paul stands on the issue of medical marijuana: he support's its legalization. Upon first glance this may seem to be a good thing. However, the true libertarian stance is against the nanny state. All drugs should be legalized. It isn't in the government's place to tell its citizens what they may or may not put into their own body. The problem with Rand Paul is that he is extreme when it comes to allowing businesses to discriminate, but not extreme where it counts perhaps even more: on the war on drugs.
Anyone who understands the war on drugs and how it is a complete failure knows that it is an issue of utmost importance. This isn't about letting stoners and hippies have their day; its about ending statism, violence, and helping to grow our economy. Paul, unlike his father, doesn't seem to understand this. He should be at the forefront of the argument speaking out against the phony war on drugs. Instead, he takes a weak, watered down stance on the issue and promotes the legalization of medical marijuana. That is simply not enough.
Either you are for freedom or for the state, take your pick Rand. So far you have damaged the Tea Party movement beyond repair. The big knock, if you recall, on the Tea Party Movement was that it was filled with racist, middle-aged, crazed blue collar people who are fed up with so much government. You are only validating the liberals when you take unpopular stances on a civil rights bill that is in the past and will never be changed. What was the point of speaking out against it? I don't understand this extremist point of view in light of the fact that you aren't willing to take extreme libertarian views on other issues.
Philosophy can be a great basis for political positions. However, one must discover that there is a difference between theory and reality. In theory, what Rand Paul wants should hold up. But in reality, all business owners and corporations are not filled with responsible, good natured people. There is incompetence in both government as well as private business. I understand that private ownership is better to bet on than government, but one must not defend private ownership at the expense of the civil liberties of American citizens. Let's suppose a private business were to bar all Jews from entering their Cafe. Does this not infringe upon Jewish American's freedom of movement? What about the American citizens?
These and many other issues are ones that Rand Paul must think clearly about. The arguments that he brings forth are at the college level- they have no place in the United States Senate. He needs to clean his act up and start coming up with constructive, practical ideas rather than loony ones that no one but him will vote in favor of.
No comments:
Post a Comment