MATTHEWS: You would have voted against that law. You wouldn’t have voted for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Yes, but not in — I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws.
MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.
PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.
MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?
PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. We have had a long history of government involvement with Medicare, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. And I think you are saying we would have been better off without all that?
PAUL: I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world.
Paul implicitly acknowledges that the CRA worked when he says, "That's ancient history.". Well, its ancient history in large part because of the fact that the federal gov't told people to stop discriminating.
I'd love to hear his reasoning as to how someone like his son could run a medical business without the benefit of old people getting health insurance provided by the gov't. In a true free health insurance market why in the world would an insurance company insure old people?
The reason this stuff really irks me is because deep down I don't think they have the courage to take their ideology to its logical conclusion. I just don't see why Ron or Rand Paul would trust the gov't to do anything, much less perform things like policing people and providing a defense of the nation with a military. Those are two of the most dangerous, freedom inhibiting powers the gov't has. Yet the only problem they seem to have with the military is that it wastes resources overseas.
I think libertarians like the Pauls are just closet anarchists without the courage of their convictions. And its not that I think anarchists are completely illegitimate and without any ideological merit whatsoever. I don't agree with them but I respect the argument. I just the kind of people who think property rights are more important than mass racial and sexual discrimination would own up to their disgust for gov't and come out as anarchists.