Following up from yesterday’s ruminations on the Libertarian fantasies of Rand Paul being nothing more than his own self-indulgence, a glorified Federalist scam with no regard for its own consequences, comes the proverbial icing on the cake.

In an upcoming issue of Detail magazine, Rand Paul is profiled. It starts off rather innocuously, with a bit of context-less ideology:

Less familiar, however, is the treatment Dr. Paul is prescribing. The federal government he envisions is a parched, skeletal—even dismembered—one: “A government that works under the enumerated powers of the Constitution,” he explains. “A government that balances its budget every year, whose primary function is national defense and the judiciary and the legislative branches, and regulating interstate commerce only so much to keep open borders between the states.” Details

At first, it is easy to imagine the lure of such a starved, stymied Federal Government, especially for our modern American conservatives (particularly those that gush over former half-term Governor Sarah Palin’s context-less ideological ramblings on her Facebook wall). But the stark consequences of such ideological fervency become clear the moment Paul ventures into what I’ll call private territory, that is, any issue regarding private property where a Libertarian imagines government is intruding on personal freedoms. The billboard-ready topic that Paul has already nationally and publicly embarrassed himself over in this category is his lamentable stance on the Civil Rights Act, which was flushed out after an interview with Rachel Maddow that I’m sure Paul will never forget. Paul has since backtracked, flip-flopped, and flat out abandoned his previously espoused view that a business owner’s freedoms to discriminate against anyone they so choose, as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (which, mind you, was written by white, elite, slave-owners), was infringed upon by the Civil Rights Act.

But that is old news. And really isn’t a relevant topic for political discourse as the racist-businessman-constituency isn’t raising this as an issue. Paul just indulges himself with these ideologically driven fantasies.

An topic like regulations on the coal industry and their practices, however, is very much an issue especially in Paul’s state of Kentucky. More specifically, mountain-top-removal mining will act as daylight in exposing the dark truth about when Libertarian zealots get taken seriously. Paul, in his own words, explains how he absolutely does not give a shit about consequences when it comes to guaranteeing total individual autonomy in private territory, even when those consequences are the irreversible environmental destruction that always comes with mountain-top-removal mining:

“I think they should name it something better,” he says. “The top ends up flatter, but we’re not talking about Mount Everest. We’re talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I’ve seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass.” Most people, he continues, “would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it.”"Let’s let you decide what to do with your land,” he says. “Really, it’s a private-property issue.” This is a gentler, more academic variation on a line he used the evening before, during his speech at the Harlan Center: “If you don’t live here, it’s none of your business.” Details

Even taking Paul’s logic at face value, his assertion that environmental regulation and regulation of industry is nothing more than a “private-property issue” conveniently ignores other property owners that unavoidably bear the consequences of mountain-top-removal mining. The pollution, run-off, carbon release, filling of valleys, disruption of scenic beauty, and destruction of sensitive habitats are all consequences that transcend political boundaries and property lines.

Paul, by making this about property-owner’s interests, is setting himself up to be caught in a lie. He is attempting to write mountain-top removal mining off as something that the locals don’t care about, nay, as something the locals actually want. He is deliberately framing this as an issue that was manufactured by distant elites and government bureaucrats, but the truth is that local populations are historically in conflict with the rampant desires of the coal industry. Any issue-ness or non-issueness of mountaintop removal mining is anything but revolving around the right of property owners to do whatever the hell they please because of a piece of paper labeled “Deed”.

For some context as to just how maligned Paul’s stance is, his statements included above were made in Harlan County, Kentucky:

Harlan County, Kentucky…is famous…for its violent coal battles. Nicknamed Bloody Harlan, and the subject of countless folk ballads (including “Which Side Are You On?”) and several books and movies (the Oscar-winning 1976 documentary Harlan County USA and the 2000 film Harlan County War, starring Holly Hunter), the county was the site of some of the most explosive labor battles of the early 20th century. The bloodiest clashes occurred in 1931, when miners, working 12-to-16-hour days without any safety or wage regulations, tried to unionize. Beatings, shootings, bombings, and tear-gas attacks followed, much of the violence perpetrated by the local sheriff’s department, which was controlled by the coal companies. Eventually, after four people died in one gun battle, federal troops were brought in to keep the peace. Bloody Harlan has been cited as a major reason for the passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which gave the federal government the power to regulate labor contracts and is anathema to everything Rand Paul stands for. Details

Seems like the locals care about things other than unabridged property-rights. The problem is that the locals aren’t going to be wielding a vote in the Senate come November. They’ll continue to have war waged upon them by the powerful coal industry, with the help of ideologues like Rand Paul. But remember, politics isn’t about people or policy, its about philosophy.