Louisville Courier Journal On Rand Paul: Hands Off Business.
Hands off business?
Rand Paul's outrageous arguments about federal civil rights laws and protections of equal access to public accommodations merit the national outcry that they have provoked. But a greater concern should be that they are but one piece of a bigger, even more disturbing picture.
Appearing Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Dr. Paul, the Republican Senate nominee in Kentucky, condemned President Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill. He accused the President of putting "his boot heel on the throat" of BP Oil, whose offshore rig exploded last month, killing 11 workers and triggering a catastrophic oil spill. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," Dr. Paul said.
On its face, it's simply a preposterous assertion -- both in its not-so-subtle evocation of fascist or communist tyranny, and in its tone-deaf obliviousness to the damage the spill is doing to the Gulf-area's economy, employment, fishing grounds and tourist destinations. Indeed, if the President deserves criticism, it's for not being more forceful in dealing with BP.
Beyond that, however, Dr. Paul's protective instincts toward BP -- like his troubling earlier assertions that private businesses should be able to discriminate without government interference -- may reflect an absolutist libertarian view that property rights (in these cases, as possessed by private businesses) supersede virtually every public interest.
If that's the case, then Dr. Paul owes Kentucky voters a lot more than explanations of his views about civil rights legislation and the BP spill. Government regulation and oversight of business are widespread in this country, and have been exercised by both parties and at federal, state and local levels. If Dr. Paul thinks governmental power over many business practices is a bad thing as a matter of principle, the questions are endless.
Would Dr. Paul oppose the government's power to inspect and certify the safety of food sources and restaurants? Does he favor government's ability to require businesses to pay minimum wages, refrain from hiring illegal immigrants and cease discriminatory practices in the workplace? Are laws forbidding sales of alcohol and tobacco to minors an unwarranted intrusion into business transactions? Is the federal government wrong to sue Toyota for allegedly covering up safety-related problems? Do consumer protections in areas ranging from lending practices, to credit-card charges, to regulation of utility rates represent unjustified government interference in businesses? Does Dr. Paul's opposition to national health care reform mean that he'd like to see insurance companies continue to be able to deny or stop coverage based on pre-existing conditions?
You get the picture. Kentuckians surely will want to add coal issues to the equation. As devastating as strip mining and mountaintop removal have been to this state, what would its coalfields look like without federal surface mining laws and regulations? Would Dr. Paul prefer to put coal miners' safety in the hands of federal inspectors, or at the tender mercies of Don Blankenship of Massey Energy?
It's a good thing there are more than five months before the November election. Dr. Paul will need every bit of that time to clear things up.
Editor's comment: "Dr. Paul's protective instincts toward BP -- like his troubling earlier assertions that private businesses should be able to discriminate without government interference -- may reflect an absolutist libertarian view that property rights (in these cases, as possessed by private businesses) supersede virtually every public interest."
YEP. That's putting it succinctly and directly.
Rand Paul's outrageous arguments about federal civil rights laws and protections of equal access to public accommodations merit the national outcry that they have provoked. But a greater concern should be that they are but one piece of a bigger, even more disturbing picture.
Appearing Friday on ABC's "Good Morning America," Dr. Paul, the Republican Senate nominee in Kentucky, condemned President Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill. He accused the President of putting "his boot heel on the throat" of BP Oil, whose offshore rig exploded last month, killing 11 workers and triggering a catastrophic oil spill. "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," Dr. Paul said.
On its face, it's simply a preposterous assertion -- both in its not-so-subtle evocation of fascist or communist tyranny, and in its tone-deaf obliviousness to the damage the spill is doing to the Gulf-area's economy, employment, fishing grounds and tourist destinations. Indeed, if the President deserves criticism, it's for not being more forceful in dealing with BP.
Beyond that, however, Dr. Paul's protective instincts toward BP -- like his troubling earlier assertions that private businesses should be able to discriminate without government interference -- may reflect an absolutist libertarian view that property rights (in these cases, as possessed by private businesses) supersede virtually every public interest.
If that's the case, then Dr. Paul owes Kentucky voters a lot more than explanations of his views about civil rights legislation and the BP spill. Government regulation and oversight of business are widespread in this country, and have been exercised by both parties and at federal, state and local levels. If Dr. Paul thinks governmental power over many business practices is a bad thing as a matter of principle, the questions are endless.
Would Dr. Paul oppose the government's power to inspect and certify the safety of food sources and restaurants? Does he favor government's ability to require businesses to pay minimum wages, refrain from hiring illegal immigrants and cease discriminatory practices in the workplace? Are laws forbidding sales of alcohol and tobacco to minors an unwarranted intrusion into business transactions? Is the federal government wrong to sue Toyota for allegedly covering up safety-related problems? Do consumer protections in areas ranging from lending practices, to credit-card charges, to regulation of utility rates represent unjustified government interference in businesses? Does Dr. Paul's opposition to national health care reform mean that he'd like to see insurance companies continue to be able to deny or stop coverage based on pre-existing conditions?
You get the picture. Kentuckians surely will want to add coal issues to the equation. As devastating as strip mining and mountaintop removal have been to this state, what would its coalfields look like without federal surface mining laws and regulations? Would Dr. Paul prefer to put coal miners' safety in the hands of federal inspectors, or at the tender mercies of Don Blankenship of Massey Energy?
It's a good thing there are more than five months before the November election. Dr. Paul will need every bit of that time to clear things up.
Editor's comment: "Dr. Paul's protective instincts toward BP -- like his troubling earlier assertions that private businesses should be able to discriminate without government interference -- may reflect an absolutist libertarian view that property rights (in these cases, as possessed by private businesses) supersede virtually every public interest."
YEP. That's putting it succinctly and directly.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home