There is only one antidote to racism: the philosophy of individualism and its politico-economic corollary, laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand
So spoke the namesake of Rand Paul in 1963, the philosopher and authoress Ayn Rand, extolling the virtues of unfettered economic superiority as a method of creating public policy by noting, "Capitalism is the only system that functions in a way which rewards rationality and penalizes all forms of irrationality, including racism."
I'll bet you had no idea, gentle reader, that such a complex and historically devastating global tragedy such as institutionalized racism had such a simple, single cure. You, being the well-read citizen that you are, no doubt must be confused, asking yourself, "Was I sleeping through Economics 101? How did I miss this?" But your ignorance is forgiven. For truly, the implications of Rand's proposal [the Ayn, not the Paul] would intimate that the last thousand years worth of Western European imperial expansion, colonization, subjugation of native populations, and exploitation of natural resources for the sole purpose of the benefiting free market enterprise -- activities that enriched the gilded conquerors beyond imagination -- would have resulted in nothing short of world peace and unequivocal global brotherly love.
Why, such unpleasantries as bigotry and racial hatred would simply never sully the gentle and refined sensibilities of the proper laissez-faire libertarian!
This is the gist of the Libertarian movement, the reason d'etre for both their existence and their popularity on the modern political stage. They believe that their own, personal lack of racial animus impunes their entire movement with absolute racial amnesty; a veritable "Free Pass" to comment on the veracity of social wars in which they played no part, pontificating from the sidelines on questions of equality and discrimination with all the adolescent arrogance of a high school sophomore who's never set foot outside the suburbs.
You'll notice there aren't a lot of poor, black libertarians.
Have an honest, heart-to-heart conversation with any modern libertarian, and it will go something like this:
Libertarian: "Absolutely not! Those employees choose to work for WalMart."
You: "What's that supposed to mean?"
Libertarian: "It means they could work someplace else, if they don't like it."
You: "No they can't. Those people work at WalMart precisely because they can't work anywhere else! They're undereducated, and poor."
Libertarian: "That's the point. Being poor and uneducated is their choice. If they really wanted to, they could go to college, and work, and be rich, like me."
You, being the naturally curious-minded creature you are, wonder who would be left to work at WalMart if everyone followed your friend's advice, or conversely, how much a roll of toilet paper might thereafter cost, but wisely refrain from asking. The "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps" ideology is a deeply held and beloved refrain of the libertarian movement, who regard it with biblical awe as if it were the very Gospel according to Baron Von Munchausen. You question it at your own peril.
The problem with such beliefs, in spite of the enthusiasm with which they are held, is that they defy, with equal aplomb, both logic and human history, opting instead for a bizarre combination of Objectivist circular rhetoric and dogmatic but naive patriotic pontifications. The belief holders are like the cursed offspring of an unholy union between the mean "egg-management" fee guy from Ally Bank and, say, Imelda Marcos.
As the venerable Senator Jim Clyburn from South Carolina pointed out, Mr. Paul seems to believe that his personal Libertarian beliefs entitle him to a seat in Congress from which he can construct public policy in his own image -- an image which, as described above, refuses to sully itself by getting its hands dirty in the nitty-gritty hard work of real racial equality reform and which relegates an entire era of recent and significant American history to the dust heap of unnecessary, antiquated federal legislative overreaching.
It's not as if these ideas are new. The concept of laissez-faire social policymaking is as old as human civilization. It has been practiced, unfettered, by every culture on every continent throughout history -- right up until someone in the tribe declares themselves "king" and proceeds to stomp all over the rights of everyone else who isn't. More particularly, the ideas and policies espoused by modern Libertarians are eerily similar to those practiced by a well-documented moiety of our historical economic ancestors: the feudal society.
Feudalism, in is simplest form, consists of a triangular relationship between a weak central government, the "lords" who own and control land, and the peasantry/worker class. If you believe in reincarnation, you will immediately recognize the class into which you continually re-manifest. In truth, so do most libertarians; and yet, for reasons beyond explanation, they persist in holding onto the belief that the reestablishment of a more feudal system of government will result in themselves holding the coveted position of Lordship -- kings of their own domain, queens of their castle, rulers of their own land, owing little more to the central government than a fealty and pledge of military service in the name of their country, and endowed with a right-of-dominion over their land that is firmly and forever ensconced in The Constitution, the document "written by the Finger of God" if you listen to Glenn Beck. Which they do.
If you think about it, that's really quite an attractive scenario. As long as you're on top.
To hold such a world view requires, naturally, the belief that ALL people are free to obtain what you yourself have obtained. The existence of poverty, issues of inequity or discrimination, or disadvantages and disabilities of birth -- all of these social ills are easily explained away by the modern libertarian: people chose to be that way. The libertarian is not responsible for helping them. But if they do, it will be because of charity. Yes, charity is big platform in the Libertarian party. Got cancer and lost your house? Go to a church and ask for charity. Husband died and left you with three kids? Throw yourself on the mercy of your family and neighbors. The elimination of all social safety nets is a central tenet of libertarian thought.
Again, LiberalAria believes these proposals are not without precedent. The idea that the benefits of unregulated free markets will "trickle down" to the common people has been tried in every country, on every continent that has ever known colonization. In fact, Auntie Aria believes she has seen just such a society in full swing quite recently, to wit, I give you:
Yes, the slum whence came the millionaire dog. The place where poor people choose to live their lives of self-imposed, completely optional and utterly reversible hunger, degradation and inferiority. And don't even think about bringing up health care. Health care is a privilege, not a right. You have to earn it. It says so right in Maine's new GOP platform declaration. That, and opposition to the U.N.'s Rights of the Child initiative, but Auntie will address that another time.
Gentle readers might ask themselves, "Where do these slums exist, and how did they get like that anyway?" Well, LiberalAria is glad you asked. The worst slums exist in those lucky countries with a long and distinguished history of imperial occupation and abundant natural resources -- India, Argentina, Bolivia, the Phillipines, you get the idea. The story is always the same. Underdeveloped country is rich in [fill in the mineral], native peoples are lazy and unmotivated, superior Race (by Manifest Destiny and the Will of God) miraculously appears and takes over said natural resources, developing them according to Lockean theory of best-use economics, native peoples either get on board, get educated, work for low wages without complaint -- or die. Their choice.
It's like AVATAR, only on Earth. And worse.
Just like the N'avi, no earthbound native people have ever let this go without a fight. Many a "revolucion" has been waged against the forces of imperial capitalism, with varying degrees of duration and success. And those people are what libertarians like to call -- SOCIALISTS!!!
Yes, in libertarian mythology, no -ism is to be as feared, as loathed, as utterly disparaged as that of the dreaded social persuasion. Which, for a movement ostensibly predicated on the platform of individual rights and value, is kind of strange. Now, to be fair, modern libertarian commentators regularly interchange the wicked -ism of social with that of fasc-, marx- and commun-, its evil cousins. But the bulk of libertarian distain is reserved for that special brand of social pathology embraced by those who pose the greatest threat to the implementation of their regulation-free utopia -- the progressive liberal ergo socialist.
More on those creatures next . . . .
