Is there a method behind Rand Paul's libertarian madness? Given the tidal wave of criticism leveled at Senate candidate Rand Paul over his
remarks about the Civil Rights Act, you would think the embattled candidate would make at least some effort to steer clear of another controversy. Not
Dr. Paul has taken it upon himself to defend BP's role in the oil spill currently devastating the Gulf of Mexico once again putting himself in the
crosshairs of media pundits. And that's not all.
In an opinion piece published in the Bowling Green Daily News last week, Rand Paul defended his statements regarding civil rights on MSNBC, and then
proceeded to take his libertarian views to the next level:
"In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be
free from a nanny state.Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
I myself am not an uber capitalist
or a laissez faire capitalist and therefore not that sympathetic to libertarians in general and Rand
Paul in particular.
But I have to admit the examiner columnist has a point.
Living as I do in a southern state, I can verify that Paul's positions on many issues will probably be popular with some southerners. The south is
basically more conservative than the north on a number of issues.
I myself have to applaud Paul's position on smoke-free restaurants. If owners want to run a restaurant that allows people to smoke, and people who
smoke want to go there, then that's entirely their business. It's not as if there are no non-smoking restaurants for those who prefer a smoke-free
environment. It's blatant discrimination against smokers, who are committing no crime. Smoking is still legal in this country.
So far nobody has tried to pass laws saying alcohol cannot be sold or consumed in restaurants. That is still up to the restaurant owners and their
Will be watching Paul's campaign with interest.
[edit on 10-6-2010 by Sestias]