# Rand Paul's interview on Rachel Maddow - A real Libertarian meets the real world **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157 "2010-05-20T18:07:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/361 "2010-05-23T13:05:43Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Libertarians could make the argument that regulating the degree of purity in water is too expensive to be worth the effort, especially since people would just decide to stop buying contaminated water all on their own without any government intervention, anyway. Which is true; dead people don’t buy much water. The free market works! ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/362 "2010-05-23T13:14:25Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Which is true; dead people don’t buy much water. The free market works! The zombie-virus creation companies all go out of business in _days_! Don’t dis the invisible hand. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/363 "2010-05-23T13:33:52Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > You might be correct that the racist would do more honest business, but you would be incorrect to assume a libertarian government would not intervene on your behalf against the threat of coercion or physical force. > > Personally, I think in your scenario whoever made the best sandwiches at the best price would probably make the most money. The racists might try to beat you up, but that has nothing to do with the type of government in power. Why do you think whoever made the best sandwiches at the best price would make the most money? I’m supplying a poorer clientele, plus some fragments of a richer clientele. (You’re not going to argue that, I hope?) while the more exclusive store is supplying a richer clientele. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/364 "2010-05-23T13:49:24Z")
Quick question for you libertarian folks. Boss threatens to fire all his female employees if they don’t have sex with him, as is normal some of his employees can’t afford to lose their jobs. Should the government intervene? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/365 "2010-05-23T13:59:47Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Quick question for you libertarian folks. > > Boss threatens to fire all his female employees if they don’t have sex with him, as is normal some of his employees can’t afford to lose their jobs. > > Should the government intervene? Well he’d be silly to do so in that manner. If he simply discriminated against women who would not have sex with him he’d be on much better legal grounds. Put a sign up saying slutty women only and your good. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/366 "2010-05-23T14:18:20Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Well he’d be silly to do so in that manner. If he simply discriminated against women who would not have sex with him he’d be on much better legal grounds. Put a sign up saying slutty women only and your good. Well as is now that too would violate [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act](http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/367 "2010-05-23T14:45:49Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Quick question for you libertarian folks. > > Boss threatens to fire all his female employees if they don’t have sex with him, as is normal some of his employees can’t afford to lose their jobs. > > Should the government intervene? In Libertaria? No. The employer is free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, as long as it does not violate a contact they have. Of course, employees could insist on a no-sex-with-the-boss clause in their contract if that was a big concern before being hired. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/368 "2010-05-23T15:30:36Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > There is no Libertarian society and has never been one. Any more than there is a dwarven kingdom beneath the Misty Mountains. It is a pure fantasy of people who don’t like government. And this is one of the reasons it’s hard to take libertarian ideas seriously. Take communism, for example, a similar extreme ideology that requires its holder to assume that people practicing it will behave in ways that are … well … not human. If we were all saints then maybe we could live in a worker’s utopia. But in practice we know that communism leads to corruption, cronyism, and brutal repression. However, the Russians and the Chinese did demonstrate that you could apply it on a large scale and get a functioning society. They were inefficient, cruel societies, but they managed to creak along for decades before their many flaws brought them down. Communism is a crappy way to run a country, but it still managed to beat Hitler and put the first man in space. But libertarianism is unable to even point to a single real-world example of how it would function in practice. Not a country, not a state, not a city. If libertopia would be so superior to what we have now, let the libertarians demonstrate it on a small scale. Run a medium-sized city like Nashville or Phoenix or Des Moines on libertarian principles for a decade and show the world the power of your ideas. But without an example of how it would work in practice, it’s just wankery. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/369 "2010-05-23T15:52:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In Libertaria? No. The employer is free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, as long as it does not violate a contact they have. Of course, employees could insist on a no-sex-with-the-boss clause in their contract if that was a big concern before being hired. This seems to be typical of the sort of magical thinking of libertarians. In Libertaria, employees have enough bargaining power to modify their employment contracts in their favour. And if not, there’s always another employer out there offering a better job with better terms and more enlightened policies. Meanwhile, in the real world, most jobs are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition where any negotiations massively favour the employer (at least in the absence of organized labour), and some crappy job for a sexist rapist pig of an employer might be the best or only one that’s available. If the libertarian ideal is that employees individually insist on safe working conditions free from sexual predation, etc, can they explain how in the pre-workplace regulation and union era mines, factories, dockyards, etc got away with appalling working conditions for centuries? Why didn’t the market correct that? Why didn’t the labourers just go work for someone else? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/370 "2010-05-23T16:28:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In Libertaria? No. The employer is free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, as long as it does not violate a contact they have. Of course, employees could insist on a no-sex-with-the-boss clause in their contract if that was a big concern before being hired. In United States system fucks you But, in Libertaria you fuck the system! ETA: Sorry I’ll have a serious contribution later. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/371 "2010-05-23T16:32:31Z")
So as I understand the libertarian position on fraud, unclean water, sexual harassment, and pretty much everything else in life, is summed up by the position of the mob in the poem, “An Ambulance Down in the Valley.” Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; But over its terrible edge there had slipped A duke, and full many a peasant. The people said something would have to be done, But their projects did not at all tally. Some said, “Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,” Some, “An ambulance down in the valley.” . . . But the cry for the ambulance carried the day As it spread through the neighboring city. A collection was made, to accumulate aid, And the dwellers in highway and alley Gave dollars or cents - not to furnish a fence - But an ambulance down in the valley. . . . Said one, to his peers, “It’s a marvel to me That you’d give so much greater attention To repairing results than to curing the cause; You had much better aim at prevention. For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source, Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally. It is far better sense to rely on a fence Than an ambulance down in the valley.” “He is wrong in his head,” the majority said; "He would end all our earnest endeavor. He’s a man who would shirk his responsible work, But we will support it forever. Aren’t we picking up all, just as fast as they fall, And giving them care liberally? A superfluous fence is of no consequence, If the ambulance works in the valley. . . . [Fuller version.](http://www.achieveezine.com/poems/Ambulance.shtml) Of course, in the poem, the majority doesn’t claim that a fence would be an affront to the Constitution, Freedom, Apple Pie, and Thomas Jefferson. Only _nanny statists_ would support a fence… unless there’s a profit to be made in it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/372 "2010-05-23T17:41:35Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > This seems to be typical of the sort of magical thinking of libertarians. In Libertaria, employees have enough bargaining power to modify their employment contracts in their favour. And if not, there’s always another employer out there offering a better job with better terms and more enlightened policies. > > Meanwhile, in the real world, most jobs are a take-it-or-leave-it proposition where any negotiations massively favour the employer (at least in the absence of organized labour), and some crappy job for a sexist rapist pig of an employer might be the best or only one that’s available. > > If the libertarian ideal is that employees individually insist on safe working conditions free from sexual predation, etc, can they explain how in the pre-workplace regulation and union era mines, factories, dockyards, etc got away with appalling working conditions for centuries? Why didn’t the market correct that? Why didn’t the labourers just go work for someone else? You forgot to capitalize “Libertarians” in your first sentence. 😉 Also, keep in mind that early industrialists were typically in collusion with the government to suppress unions. [As Adam Smith noted:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions#Origins_and_early_history) > [@](#): > > The 18th century economist Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or “masters”). In The Wealth of Nations, Book I, chapter 8, Smith wrote: > > ``` > We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate[.] > > When workers combine, masters ... never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, laborers, and journeymen. > > ``` > > As Smith noted, unions were illegal for many years in most countries (and Smith argued that schemes to fix wages or prices, by employees or employers, should be). There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, up to and including execution. Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labor law that not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions. Even after the legitimization of trade unions there was opposition, as the case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs shows. [Tolpuddle Martyrs:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs) > [@](#): > > In 1834 James Frampton, a local landowner, wrote to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, to complain about the union, invoking an obscure law from 1797 prohibiting people from swearing oaths to each other, which the members of the Friendly Society had done. James Brine, James Hammett, George Loveless, George’s brother James Loveless, George’s brother in-law Thomas Standfield, and Thomas’s son John Standfield were arrested, found guilty, and transported to Australia. The system we have now is the result of a reaction to a system in which the government was vastly on the side of the rich and powerful. Had the government taken a more neutral role from the beginning, I don’t see that it’s unreasonable to expect that an organic development of labor unions would have evolved more quickly to address exactly the issue you raise. They did, in fact, try to, but were largely repressed by the government. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/373 "2010-05-23T17:58:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In Libertaria? No. The employer is free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, as long as it does not violate a contact they have. Of course, employees could insist on a no-sex-with-the-boss clause in their contract if that was a big concern before being hired. Or, it could be negotiated. A bonus system, based on either quality or quantity, but only as an extra bonus that does not jeopardize the basic “work package”. On the flip side, ugly bosses have to pay bigger bonuses, because, well, they’re fucking ugly 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/374 "2010-05-23T18:08:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The system we have now is the result of a reaction to a system in which the government was vastly on the side of the rich and powerful. Had the government taken a more neutral role from the beginning, I don’t see that it’s unreasonable to expect that an organic development of labor unions would have evolved more quickly to address exactly the issue you raise. They did, in fact, try to, but were largely repressed by the government. But labour unions are largely ineffective unless they can form a monopoly or near-monopoly on the labour for a given employer. They achieved that by means of physical coercion - beating the crap out of scabs. Nowadays the government enforces their monopoly. I don’t see how organized labour can become powerful enough to counter large employers in Libertaria even if government adopts a neutral stance. They won’t get the labour laws mandating their monopoly, and they won’t be able to use physical coercion to enforce it themselves. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/375 "2010-05-23T18:10:45Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > There is no Libertarian society and has never been one. Any more than there is a dwarven kingdom beneath the Misty Mountains. It is a pure fantasy of people who don’t like government. The closest thing is Somalia. Eww. You don’t really understand libertarianism if you think Somalia is close. Protection of fundamental rights is absolutely necesary and emphasized within libertarianism - it’s not anarchy. > [@](#): > > Fraud would be a hell of a lot easier to perpetrate in a Libertarian society, and have the consequences be minimal. Libertarians are big on contracts, consenting adults, and all that. Because there would be fewer regulations, there’d be a bigger emphasis on contractual obligations and dealing in good faith. Fraud would be a very serious issue. > [@](#): > > I tolerate racist free speech in the sense that I walk away from it. My free speech is necessarily dependent on something more extreme being legal. But I don’t like it. I let those with a more cast iron stomach defend it, like the ACLU, but I make damn sure no ACLU affiliate I give to supports Nazis speaking in Skokie. Interesting. So you grudgingly think it should be allowed, but would refuse to support an organization that advocated for it, even though you’re saying it’s valid? > [@](#): > > I am of the opinion that it is true in every case. If there are those who are insulted by it, alas, they have to endure my opinion of their racist nature. But it isn’t wrong. Voltaire never said “I despise what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” If what a person advocates results in racism at lunch counters, I can infer that any human being who is not severely mentally retarded can understand the consequences. Something I’m curious about. You’re sure I’m a racist. Ok. But there are multiple protected classes enshrined in the civil rights act. How are you so sure that blacks are the ones I want to hate? What if I’m taking this philosophical position because I actually want the handicapped or Turks or Mormons to be discriminated against? I just want to ban cripples and you dare to sully my good name with accusations of racism! Seriously, though - if you can logically infer that I support the right of a business owner to decide on who they serve and therefore I’m racist, you must also think I hate people of other nationalities, handicapped, gays, people over 40, hell, even veterans, right? Because they’re just as much protected classes as race is. > [@](#): > > Most mentally retarded people understand that they have a right to put their hand on a burner, but know better than to do it. Libtard people are pretending to be obtuse. If you think people should be able to defy the law of gravity by speaking out against it, that is a bit nutty. I’m not being obtuse. I realize that revoking that law would lead to more racist behavior, and that’s unfortunate. I think allowing hate groups to speak probably leads to more racist behavior too, but in both cases, I think the people have the fundamental right to be dicks in that particular way. I don’t support their position, but I support their right to have it. On the other hand - how negative are you if you think the only thing keeping us from falling back into 1950s race relations is the civil rights act? I’d like to think we’ve made a little progress in 50 years. If we revoked that part of the act, would racists just be jumping for joy and forcing blacks to the back of the bus on day 1? > [@](#): > > No. Not at all. I did not say that you, Sam Stone and John Mace are racist. I am saying that if people are holding a certain opinion and not severely mentally retarded, that they are racists. I have not connected individual posters with my opinion that people who want to scratch the 64 voting rights act are racist. Are you? This is an issue where pragmatism and idealism split quite a bit - not entirely unlike, say, seat belt and helmet laws where I recognize they do practical good but run afoul of my ideological concerns. It’s not something I would actively persue since there are about 50000 things more important, but I do defend it ideologically. Or, at the very least, I defend the notion that people can believe it for ideological, rather than for secret racist reasons. I am defending the idea, though - that there are ideological reasons for defending the position. Since you believe that all people who defend the positions are actually racist who hide behind claims of ideology, you must therefore think I’m a racist. Go ahead and say it. Doing this “you believe X, all people that believe X are retards” type of insults are too passive aggressive for my tastes. > [@](#): > > If you know anything that is true as an absolute, then you know more than I. I know that it is entirely fair to conclude that anyone whose opinion is that the voting rights act of 1964 is wrong and that private discriminating clubs are okay and not hiring blacks should not be illegal is a racist. Don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s raining. I know it for an absolute because you say anyone who advocates that view is a racist, and I’m advocating that view. Since I know I’m not a racist, I can plainly see that your conclusion is false, as much as owning a red honda proves the notion that all hondas are blue false. > [@Miller](#): > > So, let me get this straight. In your ideal society, it would be illegal to sell contaminated water, and claim that it’s pure. But it would _not_ be illegal to simply sell contaminated water, and make no claims to its purity one way or the other? > > Can you explain how this system works better than simply making it illegal to sell contaminated water? I really don’t see any reason why I’d prefer your hypothetical to the way we do things now. How would changing this make my life better? To be clear, I think you’re conflating my views with people more extreme than I am. I’m not saying I would be ok with selling contaminated water. I have no problem with the idea of FDA and USDA type organizations existing. Giving people information is always a laudable goal. I’m not one of those types who says “I can figure out which pills to take with my folksy wisdom!” if we had medicines with no regulation whatsoever. I was just pointing out that the process he described, putting local tap water into bottles and calling it more safe/pure/whatever is fraud, and libertarians don’t like fraud. There have been a lot of claims in this thread that suggest that libertaria would openly encourage con artists - trick anyone anyway you can and you’re good! But libertaria is big on contracts, on good faith dealing. This, along with the Somalia comparisons, make me think that a lot of people here fundamentally understand much about libertarianism. Personally, by the way, I’m very much a little L libertarian. I don’t subscribe to a lot of what the philosophy emphasizes. Really, I’m mostly someone who wants utmost protection of human rights and the government of the US, particular the federal, to be massively smaller. Libertarian comes closest of the parties to describing my beliefs, but I don’t subscribe wholesale. I even have some beliefs that would have libertarians disown me - for instance, I think a single payer medical system would probably be a significant improvement over the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/376 "2010-05-23T18:23:57Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Sure. He only gets to keep his job if the voters are happy. If a bunch of cases of food poisoning start cropping up at area restaurants, that gives his opponent an issue to run on, so it’s in the mayor’s best interest to lean on the local health inspectors to make sure they’re doing their jobs. If the inspectors are incompetent or corrupt, political pressure can be used on the elected officials who are their bosses to get them reprimanded or fired. > > This sort of stuff is the meat and potatoes of local politics. You don’t get elected mayor because of your theories about free enterprise. You get elected mayor because you promise to fill the potholes, and keep the streets safe, and repair the leaky sewer system. And you keep your job by making sure that all the city employees (including the restaurant health inspectors) do a decent job of whatever they’re supposed to be doing. And, in practice, it doesn’t work that way with government officials, either. The mayor will pound the podium and vow to Get To the Bottom Of This, and end up blaming some middle manager. It will usually be forgotten come election time because he did do a hell of a job on fixing those pot holes in front of your house. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/377 "2010-05-23T18:32:48Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I make damn sure no ACLU affiliate I give to supports Nazis speaking in Skokie. If you don’t support free speech for views you despise, you don’t support free speech at all. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/378 "2010-05-23T18:37:36Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > If you don’t support free speech for views you despise, you don’t support free speech at all. Your “principled free speech” stance is just a mask for your hidden racist agenda. I’m onto you. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/379 "2010-05-23T18:42:17Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > You might be correct that the racist would do more honest business, but you would be incorrect to assume a libertarian government would not intervene on your behalf against the threat of coercion or physical force. And if they refused to do so, as was common in the south during Jim Crow, would you send in Federal troops? What authority would you use if no Federal laws were being broken? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/380 "2010-05-23T18:51:04Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > But labour unions are largely ineffective unless they can form a monopoly or near-monopoly on the labour for a given employer. They achieved that by means of physical coercion - beating the crap out of scabs. Nowadays the government enforces their monopoly. > > I don’t see how organized labour can become powerful enough to counter large employers in Libertaria even if government adopts a neutral stance. They won’t get the labour laws mandating their monopoly, and they won’t be able to use physical coercion to enforce it themselves. I don’t see why a single union needs to have a monopoly. Why couldn’t there be multiple unions negotiating for “market share” within the corporate world the same way corporations fight for market share among consumers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=20)