Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Ron Paul: A Rose By Any Other Name
I know all there are scores of too-cool-for-school kids who hang out on Bill Maher's Facebook page and stoke this little man's enormously fragile ego.
Bill's always been a big fan of Ron Paul's, although he's not too keen on Rand Paul. I can't figure out why, because their idealogy is one and the same. I mean Rand learned his tricks at the foot of the master.
But I get it. Bill and his barely post-pubescent (emotionally and intellectually) gang think Paul's ke-wel because he wants to bring the troops home from just about everywhere (no plan for what to do with the masses of servicemen discharged thereafter) and he wants to legalise pot, prostitution and pinball.
OK. Fine. But, in case you don't see anything wrong with what Ron Paul's saying in this clip, from May 2011, in case you don't know why Chris Matthews is going into spittle-flecking mode, here's a quick history lesson for you: PROPERTY RIGHTS is a euphemistic racist term. PROPERTY RIGHTS was what slave-owners claimed under the Constitution when the government in Washington was conflicted within itself (nice to know some things never change, eh?) during the 1850s, when it attempted constitutionally to halt slavery or, at least, halt the expansion of slavery. And PROPERTY RIGHTS is the euphemism used by Abraham Lincoln when instructing the invading Union Army not to interfere in freeing any slaves who absconded from their masters. The only way around that was for General Ben Butler to treat slaves who escaped to his lines as contraband, or "appropriated property" so as to avoid any abuse of "property rights." So, you see, even the Yankees were constrained, at first, to treat the slaves as chattel.
And PROPERTY RIGHTS was the cry which went up amongst Southern white businessmen in the 50s and 60s, like Lester Maddox, the axe-wielding restauranteur who became governor of Georgia, in order to enforce segregation from the schoolroom to the storefront.
PROPERTY RIGHTS is a subject dear to any Libertarian's heart, and it's the reason why any Libertarian thinks the Civil Rights' Amendment of 1963 is wrong, wrong, wrong. As you can see, the apple didn't fall too far from the tree, because last year, Rand Paul used the same argument against the Civil Rights Act, when Rachel Maddow so aptly handed him his ass on a silver platter.
So there you go. Like Bill'n Hill, ya like Ron, ya gotta like his boy Rand. Their philosophies are the same - no picking and choosing. Why is it the daddy's ideals are more attractive than the son's, especially since they're one and the same?
But, still, I guess the spawns of the culture of instant gratification fit in well in the selfish me-first idealogy of the Libertarians. Just remember to bone up on your property rights when you're hanging out with Bill and the Aqua Buddha.