A Curious Sort-of Agreement

It has come to my attention that a significant number of my blogs boil down to issues of the role of government in the lives of the American people. I try to make a point of being an informed person on American politics, as I wish to be able to defend any arguments I make either for or against any particular policy or individual. I pride myself in my ability to be objective, or at a minimum, to be able to identify my own biases. That is to say, for instance, that I prefer to get my news from MSNBC rather than Fox News, though I know that MSNBC is almost as favorable to the political left as Fox News is to the political right. The reason is because I also know that, unlike Fox News, MSNBC doesn't just make shit up. Of course, I could circumvent the whole thing and go to CNN (which is reasonably centrist), but they just don't have any style. Hey, I am an American, and I like my news to have a bit of flair!

My larger point is that I'm self-aware enough to at least know where my prejudices lie. On the whole, I tend to be pretty leftist, though there are some issues on which I am at least ambivalent, if not firmly to the right. In brief, you might call me "pro-death" (like Bill Maher) in that I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-assisted suicide/euthanasia (in the first and third instances because people should be allowed to do what the hell they want to themselves, in the second because we just need to get some people outta here...there are too many of us). I'm in favor of legalization of most (if not all) drugs (again, people should be allowed to do what the hell they want). I believe that gay marriage should be as legal as any other (see previous argument). I have mixed feelings about second amendment rights (that's guns, kids), as I understand the problem, but see no realistic solution to the seemingly endless wave of violence, and I can certainly see the argument in favor of these rights (though I feel that it is often abused and misinterpreted). I'm more or less opposed to affirmative action because I'm not interested in anybody playing favorites and because I believe so strongly in social Darwinism (and if blacks or any other minority don't like their place in society, then they damn well ought to do something about it other than bitch and moan...but at the same time, if they want to be treated with equality, then they also need to act like they deserve it...sorry, that got a bit tangential, and I'll be coming back to it shortly). I believe in individual freedom and keeping government as small as possible, because I think that large government is at best unwieldy and prone to bureaucracy and red tape, and at worst corrupt and invasive of its citizens' privacy, though I also acknowledge that a minimal amount of government is a necessary evil (not to mention unavoidable; again, more on this in a moment). One might call me a libertarian of sorts, though I prefer not to be labeled, and at any rate, libertarians tend to be (though are not exclusively) capitalists, while I stand considerably left of center when it comes to economics, at least in theory. That's me in a nutshell, and it brings me, at long last, to my main topic for today, so thanks for bearing with me thus far, and please don't give up, as I'm just getting warmed up!

On the topic of libertarians, I come inevitably to Dr. Rand Paul, who has suddenly found himself in the news for something other than being the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul (the two will henceforth be differentiated as Dr. Paul for the former, and Congressman Paul for the latter). Like father, like son, Dr. Paul has made a name for himself as more or less a textbook libertarian, advocating for individual freedom for the American people, even at the expense of some of his personal beliefs (which I applaud), while being generally conservative on most issues, enough to recently secure the GOP nomination for a Kentucky Senatorial seat this fall. What made the news, however, was Dr. Paul's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, in which he was seemingly unsure whether or not he supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course, this made it appear on its face that Dr. Paul is a racist and is unwilling to admit to it. Perhaps surprisingly, I don't believe this to be the case, and not only because of Dr. Paul's subsequent statement that he "will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act". My feeling, upon great reflection of his stated political views, is that Dr. Paul is simply still in the process of sorting out just where the balance should lie in the struggle of personal freedom versus government intervention. In this respect, the Civil Rights Act is in something of a grey area, and I found myself re-thinking my position on the Civil Rights Act, which I have long applauded. Should the government be permitted any say here in the way people treat one another (outside of physical harm, of course)? As I stated previously, I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they like, so long as it is not injurious to another person. To be perfectly frank, I believe (as I suspect Dr. Paul does) that if a person wants to be a racist, then there should be nothing preventing that, provided they don't go out lynching black dudes, and that if a company wants to not hire black people, then it is likely to be socially shunned and lose enough business that it will cease to exist, and that if a politician wants to be racist, then he runs the risk of committing political suicide. It's the long and slow and painful way to move towards a more fair and equal society (though we will never be a utopia; I'm not that idealistic), but it appears to me to be the best path to take. Rather than trying to force people to accept equality de jure, it should be allowed to happen organically. I still probably wouldn't vote for Dr. Paul if I were a Kentuckian, because he is still a Republican, and I'm very wary of Republicans in general simply because for every rational and reasonable thing the typical Republican says, he or she has probably also said three completely batshit crazy things. I am glad that Dr. Paul seems to be aware of the complexity of this issue, even if we are not in complete agreement in our respective assessments of it. He believes in this instance that the end justifies the means, while I believe that the end will sort itself out, whatever the means may be, and as such, I would prefer to keep the government minimal and unobtrusive (and un-intrusive), because a big government doesn't do much other than scare the shit out of me.

If you have managed to trudge through this entire piece, then I wish to thank you sincerely. I know it has been quite long, and I appreciate your endurance. It required much more time to write than to read, I assure you. As this is clearly something that I feel very strongly about, I would of course encourage any and all comments, whether they be in support of or in disagreement with all these things that pop into my mind and fall out of my fingertips.