It is a peculiar characteristic unique to our country that Americans talk about political issues in constitutional terms, thereby turning every policy debate into an argument over basic principles.  That was my thought when I read about Senate candidate Rand Paul and his “Constitutionalist” view that the federal government has no right to dictate the behavior of private enterprises.  Mr. Paul came under fire last week for suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far when it prohibited discrimination by private businesses.  You can read more here (astute students in my Constitutional Law class will observe that Mr. Paul inspired one of the questions on my final exam this year).

Paul objects to federal policies regulating business due to his reading of the U.S. Constitution.  His political philosophy might best be characterized as extreme libertarianism.  Following the objectivist principles of Ayn Rand, he argues that the public should be left to their own devices and that greater social benefits will accrue naturally over time from the enlightened (and rational) self-interest of individuals.  Ironically, Paul’s embrace of self-interest as a moral good in itself is directly at odds with the view of the Framers of the Constitution.  The people who designed our constitutional system spent much time criticizing the biases, prejudices, and self-interested motivations of the general public.  The system of government that they created was intended to ameliorate the very aspects of human nature that objectivists like Rand Paul celebrate.