Ayn Rand stated that she was vehemently opposed to racism, and that position was adopted by Ron Paul.
However, I contend that this opposition to racism only works if libertarianism is not adopted as law!
The heart of the libertarian philosophy is the adoption of voluntary relationships.
The problem with this is that it leads Rand Paul and others to harbor a need to reject the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Chipping away at this act would be most profound in the establishment of free association in business. We have seen what free association in business has done in the past. We had people not being served in restaurants, separate bathroom facilities and blacks sitting in the back of the bus.
While it is not certain that libertarianism would bring back that culture, there would be no law to stop it. Libertarianism, then, would be de facto racist if the philosophy were more than fantasy. If the Civil Rights Act were repealed, Ayn Rand could shout at the top of her lungs that she was against racism and it would not matter! Libertarianism is boxed in by the prison of it’s own reasoning!
I have always tried to give Ron Paul a fair shake in much of my writings. I think he is a master at diagnosing the problems of our financial system. It is just that the religion of libertarianism that he promotes is a terrible solution to that crisis!
And you see Ron Paul saying things like: Are you tired of paying for someone else’s social security? This brings division. And we know that social security is not a ponzi, if by the definition of ponzi you mean that it is a system of funding early investments by money that cannot continue to come in to the investment.
At some point someone will stop contributing and the ponzi will die. With social security, people always will work. If people stop working social security will be the least of the nation’s worries! With social security it becomes a question of proper payouts to projected income, not about whether it is a ponzi.
That statement Dr Paul made regarding social security is not racist, but it is divisive. It separates people, and that division will ultimately bring racism, and it would be just a matter of time. Caste and class are very intertwined. The more you divide because of class, because of economics, the more ultimately you will divide because of caste, or of race. This is always a danger and laws are there to keep this under control, as it is a serious flaw in the human condition.
As for economics, when Stiglitz says that it is necessary to improve the financial condition of the people, it is not a direct attack on libertarianism, it is an affirmation of democracy. Democratic values were not that important to Mises, or Rothbard or Rand. What was more important was a fascistic attack on communism. It is like the middle ground of democratic capitalism with selected socialism was not an option. It is like there are only two ways according to the libertarians, fascism or communism.
If these libertarians were indeed correct, then the stability of our civilisation hangs in the balance. I do not believe for a minute that they are correct. But in order to prove this the robber barons of our age must be prosecuted, reined in, and stopped from betting. Do you folks want to know where this betting and deregulation has got us? Well, in normal circumstances, a small country like Greece could default and it would not hurt the real world. But with all the betting that has taken place, a Greece default, with maybe Italy on her heels, could blow up the financial system.
Had the libertarian ideal of deregulation not been allowed to influence the deregulation of derivative swaps which made easy money too easy, we would not be in the mess we are in now. There are a long line of politicians who were influenced by Ayn Rand, Mises and Rothbard who contributed to this deregulation. Reagan, McCain, Gramm, and others finally convinced even the Democrats to pile in.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was by a 90 to 8 vote in the senate, and this exacerbated the inequality in America, as main street was attacked by toxic loans and irresponsible lending. While Ron Paul voted against the repeal in the house, he said in 2010 that he would not support reimplementation of Glass-Steagall. Too bad.
Whether the libertarians would have been ok with the current economic excess is hard to tell, although the father of the movement, Mises, didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the last robber barons in the gilded age. And you read a lot of literature from libertarianism that gives excuses for the behaviour of the robber barons back then.
The goal of the financial elite is to divide. The racism and economics of libertarianism is one of division. The noble virtues of work ethic, personal responsibility, etc. is perverted into the quest for division. The division is the goal, and the personal responsibility is the justification. That is perverse.
The racism that existed in the housing crisis debate (as some tried to blame the CRA and ethnic minorities for the housing bubble when Barry Ritholz said the CRA was not the primary power in the housing bubble) must be repudiated. I have no doubt that Wall Street is the seed for many of these divisions. Libertarianism simply gives the intellectual argument for those divisions. The fact that Wall Street would accuse minorities to deflect blame off their toxic lending and crime is a warning to us that we cannot accept the libertarian view of voluntary relationships as it applies to the public, business world.
Libertarianism will push the division fomented by Wall Street off the charts if the Civil Rights Act were ever overturned.
For Further Study:
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.