Senator Rand Paul told Breitbart News’ Ben Shapiro: “I think the President understands the Constitution enough to know that he would prefer a different type of constitution. [Supreme Court Justice] Ginsberg said she admired the South African Constitution. So, I think that’s more of where the President is coming from. They would rather have positive rights, enumerated, that everyone has the right to water, housing, haircuts, you name it.”
Democrats, without an inkling of irony, may view Senator Rand Paul as an ‘absolutist‘ for his insistence on the federal government obeying the law of the land that brought it into existence, but he understands a simple point that many in Washington do not seem to grasp. Once the government can make up “rights,” it can determine through taxation and force who pays for them. Thereby, the government violates property and individual “rights” in order to pay for the benefits of party membership and imaginary collective “rights.”
As the great scholar of American democracy Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of what is referred to in his homeland of France as “socialism”:
No, gentlemen. Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. Is it consistent with democracy to institute the most meddlesome, all-encompassing and restrictive government, provided that it be publicly chosen and that it act in the name of the people? Would the result not be tyranny, under the guise of legitimate government and, by appropriating this legitimacy assuring to itself the power and omnipotence which it would otherwise assuredly lack? Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude.
Despite the howls that Senator Rand Paul is out-of-line in his dogmatic defense of the Constitution, it remains the case that he is a far shrewder and more cogent thinker on American politics than many of the ideologically incomprehensible politicians on Capitol Hill. Clarity is not the mark of a simpleton; but this epithet could certainly be used to describe those who have a blatant disregard for the consequences of adopting progressive ideology, which is predicated on the abdication of personal responsibility.