As Betty mentioned earlier, the child who’s the lesser Paul has decided to take a little time out from uterus policing and praising our one true Lord and Savior to comment on policing. Unlike the god-bothering part of his program (which is the only part palatable to rank-and-file Republicans), he’s on solid Libertarian ground when he criticizes shitty cops. The downside with that is that full-blown libertarianism risks the age-old problem that bedevils Rand and his daddy: most of the positions of the consistent libertarian go over like a fart in church with voters.
Let’s take one example, unearthed by Matt Breunig: Do libertarians have any responsibilities to their children? Those of use unfettered by a deep study of the Austrian school might think that this question is pretty well settled in American politics. That’s probably because we’ve been marinating in moocher culture, at least according to one of Ron’s favorite economists, Murray Rothbard. Writing in his seminal work, The Ethics of Liberty, on the topic of consequences of spreading around one’s semen, Murray says this:
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)
Let me translate from the native Austrian: “Kids, they’re such a pain in the ass–what the fuck can we do with them? Well, we can’t kill the little shits, because freedom. But the devil government can’t make us feed the little ankle biters because they’re fully formed free agents the minute they exit their baby momma’s vaginas (so, obviously, they should be able to fend for themselves). However, we can definitely starve them–especially the mal-formed and/or ugly ones. I do realize that the more squeamish among you might be worried about a libertarian baby holocaust. You wimps should think about this: in my free market paradise, the good looking ones will get a decent price at the baby auction, so most of you assholes will just sell the little parasites.”
To put it in bumper sticker terms: “‘Babies, you can’t kill them, but you can starve them!’ Rand Paul for President”.