How Propertarianism hurt Rand PaulSubmitted by OctoBox on Fri, 05/21/2010 - 21:26
Of course Maddow is not Rand's or Ron's fault.
Mises declared who the individual was in society (the consumer). Not the Property-Owner, not the Worker, not the Student, and not the Senior or Minority.
All are "consumers" first.
Most Libertarians and Rothbardians claim right-seeking Propertarianism as the basis for all socio-economic and political questions.
The History of the "Racist" Property Rights Argument
1) Slaves were "property"
2) Indians never claimed "property" so it was claimed by the King and sold to his colonists
---Genocide was the answer to any Indian Nation that didn't respect the words (rights) on these "noble" documents
---13M killed in 1st 100 years
---All Tribes had 10's to 100's of broken treaties
---All pushed into Reseverationism
---All based on property rights
3) State Lines and Borders are 100% the result of Property "Rights" for the purpose of claims and redress
---This extended into Slavery especially
A "right" is a guarantee, it is protectionism against the failure of self-defense (individualism)
Hopefully I made my point here on the above (I could keep going).
Now -- How has this "hurt" Rand Paul?
We have been in Corporatism since 1964 (actually I would argue since the end of the capitalism-to-corporatism transition period.)
---Capitlaism (Washington to Taft)
---Transition Period (Wilson to Coolidge)
---Corporatism (Hoover to Obama)
....meaning when the Civil Rights Act was written we were deep into corporatism -- which means the Federal Gov't is into "everything" guaranteeing advantages (that come out of the total American dole -- including that contributed by blacks, women, gays/lesbians et al) mostly to whites -- especially wealthy and positioned white men, who by-and-large at that time were courting both poor and wealthy whites a like.
This means to counteract these "advantages" our "leaders" had one of two choices: 1) Eliminate All Rights (for all people and groups) or 2) Expand their voting horizon and broaden Right-Seeking.
Since, white people at that time could not live without "rights" and "advantages" (which in corporatism means all industries from farming to food retail, from oil to gas, from steel to plastics, from hydroelectric to consumer appliances were deeply entrenched by Big Gov't), there was no real political choice to abandon "right-seeking" (too profitable politically -- perpetual war means perpetual campaigning/lobbying).
The short version is: If there is a Fiat Monopoly Currency Market and since all property is valued in "dollars" then everything comes under the per view of Gov't -- because advantages are given out then right-seeking counter balancing efforts will be perpetually sought.
The choice was "Eliminate Propertarianism (right-seeking) in favor of Individualism (zero-rights)?" That's not a choice for a politician.
Rand's Correct Answer should of been
Rachel (given the above) if the goal is to keep Corporatist Propertariainism alive then one must Support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's entirety.
Rachel, in a truly free-society there are zero-rights and thus everyone is free to defend themselves as consumers and there are no propertarian or work advantages -- zero right-seeking opportunity.