He gave a telling of the political career of former Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, who helped orchestrate the extension of slavery into the Western territories of the United States. Paul contrasted that with the actions of Clay’s abolitionist cousin Cassius Clay.
I give Paul all the respect in the world for honoring integrity as a virtue and bucking conventional political wisdom. The thing with morality is that it cannot be compromised, only abandoned. Paul utterly supports abandoning moral principles, as he made evident in his speech.
He straightforwardly condones extortion via taxation. Now, supporters of taxation might respond that voters are eligible to elect lawmakers who abolish taxation. I suppose that could happen. In any case, majority vote is no evidence of justice.
Paul also condones deficit spending, indebting future generations who are not of age to vote. The proposed budget he introduced earlier this month would add trillions of dollars to the federal government’s debt in the coming years.
Whatever criticism Paul has of Henry Clay is equally applicable to Paul’s own politics. Clay supported the more overt practice of confiscating the labor of others by way of chattel slavery; Paul would just rather people’s future labor be confiscated by politer means and on a more general scale.
For anyone not familiar, the post’s title comes from a Frank H. Knight quote:
The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.