On June 30, 2008 Rand Paul said he opposed legislation that defines morality:
And on November 24, 2008, Paul again appeared on Kentucky Tonight to discuss the state budget and he said the following:
“I’m against legislating morality. I mean, I’m for having crimes and having laws against things that are violent crimes but things that are non-violent shouldn’t be against the law.”
See for yourself:
To rehash, Rand Paul believes non-violent crime should not be criminalized. Things like: Enron, the crimes going down on Wall Street, campaign finance fraud, election fraud, discrimination on the basis of race/creed/religion/sexual orientation/disability, littering, pollution by corrupt mining companies, some faux repairman swindling your meemaw’s $140,000 retirement fund.
He’s on record, on video, and this cannot be spun.
26 responses so far ↓
1 AttentionWhore // May 25, 2010 at 12:04 pm
OMG! Rand Paul supports smoking rights! OMG!
2 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Every time a law is passed, morality is legislated.
3 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 12:06 pm
I say that because justice is an issue of morality and a law can’t be passed without the law-making body considering whether or not the law is just. They disagree on what is just and what is not just……..but they can’t pass law without considering the issue of justice.
4 Boo // May 25, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Does this mean he is in favor of Prostitution, Gambling, fraud, and so on being Legal for Kentucky or entire USA?
Libertarianism has too many contradictions internally to count
5 Belknap Banquo // May 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm
“Every time a law is passed, morality is legislated.” I think Burke said that, right Mommy Lisa? So if the county clerk is given more fees to issue me a license plate, I’m in the middle of a morality play?
6 Brian // May 25, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I think I’ve heard libertarians refer to fraud as a type of violence against persons (doesn’t make much sense to me either) but I think what Rand really means by that is he doesn’t want to lock up people for smoking pot. I can agree with that as a progressive, but he won’t admit to it while running for office… -.-
7 Brian // May 25, 2010 at 12:32 pm
PS: Walter Williams is DEFENDING Rand’s civil rights position on Rush Limbaugh today..
I guess it’s meant to be more credible because Walter is black
8 FGFM // May 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Dr. Randoid probably meant “victimless crimes,” but it was an interesting slip. Libertarians tend to claim that conflicts (like BP dumping oil in the Gulf) should be settled as civil matters, but it seems like they are not all that enthusiastic about that route either on a practical basis.
9 wondering // May 25, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“BP dumping oil in the Gulf.”
You make it sound like BP’s doing that intentionally.
There’s that little matter of intent that should be considered. Everyone’s giving him grief over it, and God knows I am no Rand Paul fan, but accidents DO happen.
10 Belknap Banquo // May 25, 2010 at 1:21 pm
My neighbor’s college age daughter asked me what libertarianism is. I then asked asked if she had a bong and a comfortable couch and a couple of hours to bullshit. She said yes, but then I asked if she was voting for Conway and she said yes, so I said, fuck it, libertarainism is when two girls like each other very, very, very much.
11 Belknap Banquo // May 25, 2010 at 1:25 pm
..resisting urge to correct typos..liberty lovers just know!
12 Steve Magruder // May 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Brian, defending which civil rights position, his latest where he “clears up” the myriad things he’s said against a part of the Civil Rights Act? I guess they only want us to hear his _latest_ position, and ignore his history. It’s like a mother’s kiss on a bloody scrape — does it really make it better? :)
wondering, accidents happen, but Rand seems to be insinuating that all accidents are equal, and they’re all about dumb luck. The reality is that the BP “accident” didn’t just happen, and that it could have been prevented if BP had been following regulations and the government was inspecting properly.
13 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Am I supposed to know who “Burke” is? No one votes for a law they think is unjust, even tax laws. People disagree on what is just and what is not just………on every point of law. Every time legislation is debated, the interpretation of justice and injustice is there.
Most people agree that it’s unjust to require a $5 million fee for a license plate. The rate is set at an amount that is deemed to be a just amount. People disagree on what is the just amount, and some believe any amount is unjust……but the question of justice is always there whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Communist.
We all want justice. That is the good thing we all share as human beings, no matter where we are on the political spectrum. Some people are horribly and tragically misguided, but even the horribly and tragically misguided make decisions based on what they subjectively think is “just”.
14 Libertarian Liberty Flip Flop // May 25, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Rand Paul, May 21, 2010: “but I’m not a libertarian”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/-im-not-a-libertarian/57090/
Rand Paul, May 4, 2009: “Libertarian would be a good description”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/?fbid=npwczE-QR77
Have fun Jake!
15 Brian // May 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm
@ Steve, Walter Williams defended the right of private discrimination today, saying Rand should have been more supportive of that view than he was.
16 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Is Walter Williams wealthy enough to hire a personal shopper? Just asking.
17 gil albans // May 25, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Burglary is non-violent, if no one is home. So is theft… So if someone steals your car, or burglarizes your house, do you not want them prosecuted.
As far as drugs go, legalizing marijuana might work, but what about the heroin addicts, meth addicts, crack addicts etcetera… where does it end.
Having been the victim of crack head trying to commit a street robbery, I became a stalwart fan of capital punishment. Having a friend who was violently raped, I became a fan of the idea that some people just do not need to breathe the same air as the rest of us. Is it nice, no… Is it just? I think so.
I feel that when treatment and methods of getting someone sober fail, then society has given all the efforts it needs to.
18 le gardien de but // May 25, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Gil interesting comment…
I’ve heard that a conservative is a person who used to be a liberal but got mugged…
I believe a liberal is a former conservative who has dealt with law enforcement in USA….
Homeland security–citizens have no clue, but foreigners who come here, w/o benefit of congressional rep, are abused & harassed by homeland security. From personal experience I assure you that this has nothing to with skin color; very few Canadiens of color…
19 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Our life experiences awaken us to areas of injustice in society. Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily proof of anything and it’s difficult to prove societal ills to people who haven’t experienced them. This is why the Consitution is an important document to stick to. At the same time, George Washington never went to Wal-Mart. It’s a different world now than it was at the time of the Founders.
Compromise has become an ugly word to both sides. Both sides are full of people too rigid to consider that the opposition might have a point. If it had not been for compromise, there would never have been a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Founders had to compromise to get there, so compromise is an important part of having an orderly society.
Most people are not involved in politics because they don’t like to see how both sides gripe at each other.
This is one reason I was so happy to support Trey. He understands that though we need to stick to our guns on our principles, the opposition is not “evil” and we can find ways to work together.
20 Brian // May 25, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Hey Lisa, will you be supporting Conway?
:-)
21 eric schansberg // May 25, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Lisa, to your point, morality is involved every time we legislate. So we need tighter categories if we’re going to get anywhere in determining when to legislate and when not to legislate (bigots, cigs, pink shutters, rape, smoking weed, homeschooling, abortion, etc.).
In my book on this, I describe (direct and significant) damage done to others as “legislating justice”– over and above “morality”– things like murder, theft, pollution, etc. As such, “legislating morality” would be the purview of the Religious Right on issues like gambling and taxes on booze– and the Left on issues like bigotry and taxes on fast food.
I know this will come as a shock to people who are fond of government redistribution of income (from the poor to the rich, from the rich to the poor, and so on). But fraud and theft are considered “violent” because you’re doing direct and significant harm to others.
Eating too many Twinkies is one thing; Wall Street fraud is another. That’s the distinction Rand is trying to draw in those snippets.
22 eric schansberg // May 25, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I made a mistake in that last post: bigotry should not be included as an example of “legislating morality” (LM). It would be a matter of “legislating justice” (LJ).
Of course, whether the State can do that effectively– and if so, whether it should be done at the local, state, or federal issue…those are important but separate questions.
One other potentially helpful distinction: those who are “pro-choice” on abortion see it as an LM issue– and not something where the govt should get involved. Those who are “pro-life” see it as an LJ issue and often conclude that the govt should have some role in dealing with the issue.
23 eric schansberg // May 25, 2010 at 8:46 pm
OK, comment 22 got through; my comment 21 is still “awaiting moderation”.
24 Lisa Graas // May 25, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Brian, why do you Paul supporters continue to let me live rent free in your head? Am I giving you nightmares? Tell me. I want to know.
25 spinnikerca // May 25, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Actually, I think he meant more along the lines of medical marijuana. Fraud is a tort, even if it isn’t a crime. Theft is a crime, it is considered violence against property.
26 Rod // May 26, 2010 at 1:38 am
“Things like: Enron, the crimes going down on Wall Street …”
Biggest crime that has gone down on Wall Street is the Trillions of $$$ in bailouts started by Bush and vastly expanded by this administration … the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
Leave a Comment