The video above is a clip from CNNs article on what Rand Paul is doing on college campuses as he prepares to run for the Presidency in 2016. The whole video and the attending article are worth watching and can be found here.
There are things I personally believe about many social issues. Meanwhile, I don't want government involved with them even if they enact laws or regulations that agree with my beliefs. For example, it's why I oppose the use of certain mind altering drugs while I also oppose the "War on Drugs." And I certainly don't want those things decided on the Federal level.
So is he (Rand Paul) trying it have it both ways? Maybe. Is it for political reasons? Maybe/probably.
Is it okay to work within the "realm of the possible" to get elected so you can move your ideas forward? Debatable for sure.
Can Paul support the election of politicians who are not totally in line with his "smaller government" ideology without abandoning his principles if he thinks it can help him build a coalition? That's always been a hard one for me because I have very little gray area (or gray matter, some might say) on some of these matters. But the answer for me is yes.
So I'm stuck. And Rand Paul is stuck. And maybe you are stuck too. But maybe we'll get used to it. After all, proponents of the freedom philosophy have been stuck with Obama since 2008. Not to mention Bush before him. Or any of the others during our time who presided over the steady erosion of our rights.
Maybe everyone on every side of every issue feels stuck. Fair enough for us. Fair enough for Rand Paul? From my perspective, yes.
You may feel differently. If so, feel free to leave a comment below. This is a blog after all.
3 comments:
Hi Grant.
I've seen first hand what drugs can do to people. It's truly terrible. Preventing that should be a national priority.
While I do agree with the small, non-intrusive government philosophy I think no government is not an option.
Like common defense, general welfare is mentioned in the Constitution's preamble. The effects of people deciding for themselves to take drugs does have an impact on the general welfare - crime, healthcare and the economy. That means to me that there is a place for government in regulating drug use.
However, like yourself, I think it should be left to the states to decide what is appropriate. There are some exceptions - I don't see a major problem with the federal government enacting legislation concerning the importation of illegal drugs. It seems that the Commerce Clause would cover that area (regulating foreign commerce).
Is Rand Paul stuck? I think if he wants to win the "legalize" vote yes, but only politically.
This isn't an area that needs to be purist black and white. As long as he adheres to the Constitutional view and remains a restrained, small government libertarian, he can still have an anti-drug view (if that is his view) on illegal drugs and not be on an unsound footing with respect to his own internal consistency.
It seems to me that being a libertarian doesn't mean you are not allowed an opinion on any issue besides governance (e.g. social issues) or that you must agree with every other libertarian on every issue. That's counter-intuitive to libertarian philosophy which is supposed to embrace individuality.
Hi Dean,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. It seems we agree, and disagree, about lots of things in your comments. There is a lot there, so let's take them one at a time and see if we can sort it out. I'll work on this as I have time and post it when I can.
The first comment, "I've seen first hand what drugs can do to people. It's truly terrible. Preventing that should be a national priority." is one that we are in exact agreement on.
However, my approach to making it a national priority might be quite different than yours.
And so I will begin to work on my reply.
Sorry it took me so long to continue my response.
The next comment is a puzzle to me. "While I do agree with the small, non-intrusive government philosophy I think no government is not an option."
We agree. I'm confused as to why you would address the case for anarchy since it's not being advocated.
Next; "Like common defense, general welfare is mentioned in the Constitution's preamble. The effects of people deciding for themselves to take drugs does have an impact on the general welfare - crime, healthcare and the economy. That means to me that there is a place for government in regulating drug use."
My answer is twofold. The most misunderstood and misapplied line in the preamble is the "general welfare" line. It can, and has, been used to permit government to do anything it wants. What substances a person puts in their bodies is not covered by that clause. So we disagree on that concept.
Next, the welfare state cannot be used to justify the violation of rights. Programs are forced upon people, then rights are violated because of the program. IE, healthcare. As to crime, there is more crime because of the WOD, not less. Finally, I'm not even sure what "the economy" means as it relates to substance usage.
Again, thanks for your opinions and comments.
Post a Comment