One of the central premises in libertarianism is that people will be accountable when they take actions that damage others. Â Your property rights shall not be infringed upon, and you shall not infringe upon the property rights of others and all that. Â That’s the magic fairy dust that makes it all work, right? Â So with BP having engaged in a massive infringement upon the property of others, what’s Paul’s reaction to Obama saying that BP needs to take some responsibility?
Paul said: “This sort of, you know ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”
Paul continued: The President’s reaction is “part of this sort of blame game society” where “it’s always someone’s fault.” Paul added: “Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”
Turning black people away from lunch counters and getting rid of regulations that keep workers safe, that’s all a necessaryÂ consequenceÂ of the sacred principles of his libertarianism. Â But holding a business accountable for the damage it does to the property of others? Â That’s not only un-liberterian, but un-American!
Christ, what an asshole.
How is “turning black people away from lunch counters” a “necessary consequence of… libertarianism”?
Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism holds (or did, until he re-checked the polls) that if Woolworth’s wanted to turn away black people in Greensboro, that they’re perfectly welcome to. And if that had turned out to be the case, I’m sure Virginia would still be full of “Whites Only” diners.
So it is not NECESSARY. Furthermore, you have a terrible notion of Virginia if you think that it would be full of “Whites Only” diners. I think such places would quickly go out of business.
Why were there Jim Crow laws in the first place?
Sure, Warren, it’s not necessary in the same way that it’s not necessary that you’ll suffer and starve if I take everything you own (because you might pull yourself up by your bootstraps!) or that it’s not necessary that mine owners won’t decide that xx number of miners a year can sacrificed to save $$$$ in safety costs because the market might say otherwise.
And I have a dead-on notion of Virginia, thanks. The terrible is Virginia’s fault, not mine.
It is not necessary in the same way that if we allow smoking in restaurants, all restaurants will necessarily be filled with smoke.