That’s Libertarians, not liberals.
As I wrote about here, Brink Lindsey, a Cato “scholar”, borderline betrays the libertarian brand in an NRA-type move, going for what’s popular (remember V-Tech?) rather than upholding the unabashed principles he’s (supposedly) there for in the first place.
Whether you agree with Paul’s premise or not, we can agree that giving the federal government one exception theoretically (especially in the libertarian viewpoint) leads to more and more exceptions. Scratch that. Exceptions like the Civil Rights Act (blacks were slaves for hundreds of years and semi-slaves for the past hundred, so exceptional federal action is warranted) have led mercilessly to countless more exceptions in policy, and to a massive shift in the American attitude toward the role of government.
Sorry for using the word exception so many times, but the point of limited, enumerated powers is to guard against exceptions, even when not ‘doing something’ is deeply unpopular. The 50-years-later chatter on the topic of the Civil Rights Act usually sounds like ‘well, it would have never happened on its own’ as if only federal power can lead and has led to desirable human progress. As if always ‘doing something’, always building a bigger, better bureaucracy will solve all ‘problems’ whether they’re identified by a stock index or a mob. Again, what about precisely enumerated powers is so difficult to comprehend (or maybe just easy to ignore)?
So, what’s left, I guess, through all the mess, is to discuss the politics of it. I, of course, take the hard road, and splice the already split-in-a-thousand ways, minute “establishment Libertarian” political ‘force’ over impurity. Heh. Do we see him shedding his lead? Do we see him stay almost frustratingly local?
But, my advice, Rand: don’t go chalkboard. Trust me, the mainstream media is not trying to engage you in professorial academic discussions. About anything.