Mandeville, LA – The Hayek loving, Libertarian, [r]epublican populace erupts in shock and anger at Senator Rand Paul’s comments to Fox Business News (video posted at end of this article) on the use of drones against American citizens. Paul seems to be walking razor thin lines of accommodation in pursuing the blessing of DeceptiCONS while retaining his Father’s libertarian base, an admirable and heroic feat which should nonetheless be classified as an attempt to obtain alternating Pyrrhic victories.
Perhaps there is no oval office in Paul’s future by pursuing a doctrinaire path and not worrying about which side is angered along the way (see Ron Paul, 1976-2012 H.O.R e.g.) but it does carry with it the benefit of consistency without exception and thus quells the nagging need to answer or dismiss queries like the one you are currently reading. Either path seems destined to deliver partial victory while neither holds out promise of a majority, but it is juts 2013 we are told. True enough, but can political decisions comport with failure to a priori defend principle?
From Hayek’s Classic “Road to Serfdom” come words of warning for Rand Paul, wading in the waters of political ambition while dipping a curious toe in the pool of State control. Some Roads are just not meant toi be traveled unless the traveller is an Augustine or Aquinas, I dop not believe Rand is either or aspires to be. Witness:
“If there is a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them. Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”
AUDIO: Mike Church defends Rand Paul after Romney endorsement (how quickly They forgot)
Hayek recalled that the do-gooders in the German and Italian governments had risen as tamesr of the Socialist State, promising a better Socialism, isn;t that what tacit acceptance of Drones and meek denouncement of foreign intervention for military economics is?
Hayek, from a1945 condensed version of “Road to Serfdom” in Readers Digest.
“But let us remember that 15 years ago the possibility of such a thing happening in Germany would have appeared just as fantastic not only to nine-tenths of the Germans themselves, but also to the most hostile foreign observer.
There are many features which were then regarded as ‘typically German’ which are now equally familiar in America and England, and many symptoms that point to a further development in the same direction: the increasing veneration for the state, the fatal- istic acceptance of ‘inevitable trends’, the enthusiasm for ‘organi- zation’ of everything (we now call it ‘planning’).
The character of the danger is, if possible, even less understood here than it was in Germany. The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest. Few recognize that the rise of fascism and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the the road to serfdom the road to serfdom preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Yet it is significant that many of the leaders of these movements, from Mussolini down (and including Laval and Quisling) began as socialists and ended as fascists or Nazis.
In the democracies at present, many who sincerely hate all of Nazism’s manifestations are working for ideals whose realization would lead straight to the abhorred tyranny.”
UPDATE: Late last night, Rand Paul released THIS statement on his comments.
My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.
Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.
Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.