Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com

Or, as the New York Times tells us, “the importance of enlightened government.”

Rand Paul’s comments are a great chance to expose the propaganda of “the conventional wisdom.” The CW is this unstated cannon of general principles that just about everyone in the press lives, frames their world, and is so indoctrinated by, they can’t even see their own bias. Like the fish that’s covered in water its whole life, “the fish doesn’t know it’s wet.”

And this editorial hits them all. Or at least the big ones. Lets look at them; one at a time!

Where are these philosopher kings of an enlightened government? How do we find these people? Even if they existed, how would they be elected? If mankind is greedy and evil, then why would you want to put other greedy and evil men over your life to rule it?

How was it possible for “neighborhood associations” to discriminate based on race? Who upheld those contracts as valid? The courts, a part of the government. Based on laws.

Who fixed the “lunch counters” that refused to seat blacks? Was it the government or public shunning? The NYT editorial laughs at you if you thought “public shunning.” Did you notice that? But guess what; read history, it was public shunning, and not any court orders that ended the now famous Woolworths lunch counter discrimination. (This was in the ‘50’s and the “civil rights act of 1964” was almost a decade later.) But the government takes credit for “giving you civil rights!”

How has “liberty” been shown to be ineffective at promoting a “civil” society? (Set aside for a minute if being “civil” is more important than being “free.”) What do they mean the “freedom of a few to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups…?” Not in a free market! Only in a powerful, top-down government can “a few” control “many.” In a free market, there’s very little a few persons can do.

The next example -- we should be so thankful the government ended slavery and something they call “Jim Crow.” (Usually they are called “Jim Crow Laws” but that would have been too obvious.) Let me get this straight. We should be thankful that the government that enabled slavery saw fit to stop enslaving us? And if the government that enforced separatist, “Jim Crow” laws has seen fit to stop doing that, we should be grateful?

Slavery could never have existed but for government support. Neither could “Jim Crow” laws. Or separate (but equal) schools, or even water fountains, which were chiefly in government buildings. I’ve read reports of frontier towns in Kansas territory that educated all their children “white” and “negro” in a one room school house. But the state officials commanded them to build two separate schools! The townsfolk didn’t see any need and thought the school was perfectly fine. (History Channel) But that was the point, the state couldn’t allow whites to “accept” negro children in their school! What would that lead to? Equality and everyone just “getting along?”

Who is the editor to say “neither (slavery nor Jim Crow) would be eliminated by a free market?” These were both created by the government, of course the free market would have ended both sooner than they were but for government action. (See Milton Friedman).

Next are the two big doozies. The two big lies we’ve been taught by the government schools since we were children. And in the press all the time, and most of us believe:

1. The government rescued the economy from the Great Depression! Oh god does anyone still believe this? I know we’ve heard this our whole lives, but there’s a large body of scholarship that says exactly the opposite. The “Great Depression” was a blip or hiccup in the economy until both Hoover and FDR “tried to fix” it. Everything they did made things worse. Hoover made it worse, he was voted out of office and FDR came in and did more of what Hoover was doing, making things even worse than they were. The result was more than a decade of poverty.

2. The government promoted safety and equality in the workplace. John Stossel goes over this better than I can. The result of free enterprise was that the workplace was getting safer and safer. When the government finally stepped in and formed “OSHA” the safety record continued about the same as it was before (getting better all the time). But the government stepped in front of the parade and took credit for the “improved workplace safety.” As is common. (See Stossel.)

So far as promoting equality? See the congressional hearing in the 1930’s regarding the new laws to protect and enable the labor union movement. The main reason the unions were asking for special protection from the government was to protect the white workers from competition from “negro labor.” And we should be “thankful” that the government grants us equality?

Editorial - Rand Paul and the Limits of Libertarianism - NYTimes.com