From Dan Foster:
I was…struck by Gibbs saying that Rand Paul’s thoughts on the Civil Rights Act “shouldn’t have a place in our political discourse” — no wonder we’re a “nation of cowards” afraid to talk about race.
Indeed. It’s because of demagogues like Robert Gibbs. And Eric Holder.
[Update a while later]
An interesting conversation on this topic by Will Cain and Dan Foster.
[Early afternoon update]
More thoughts from David Bernstein and Randy Barnett.
…for Bartlett to attack libertarianism with the premise that American law was libertarian with regard to how blacks were treated in the Jim Crow South, when in fact they suffered from overt government discrimination, blatantly discriminatory Jim Crow laws, private violence acquiesced to by the government (and sometimes with the participation of the government), and a denial of voting rights based on race, is just risible.
This is of a piece with the insanity that slavery itself was a “market failure.”
What they’re really saying is property rights have no place in our discourse. Rand Paul has repeatedly indicated his disgust with racism, but the other side will not even acknowledge the property rights issue… to them, everything is public property, not private.
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing if Rand Paul had stuck to his guns on this one? Paul now says that it was a mistake to go on the Rachel Maddow show in the first place, but never mind MSNBC — why doesn’t he go on Fox and tell KY what he really thinks? Instead, he is promising party leaders that he’ll be more circumspect in the future.
Articles like this one would really disappoint me if I was a libertarian:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37597.html
Ken, the “other side” (by which I mean mainstream Republicans) believes in business licenses. To get one and keep one, you have to abide by all sorts of restrictions imposed at the local, state, and federal level. Even if you’re against various federal restrictions on constitutional grounds, I assume you’re also against business licenses at the state and local levels too, right?
It’s always depressing for a libertarian to read anything that Lisa Murkowski or Lindsay Graham have to say. How in the world is telling a restaurant owner who he has to serve “interstate commerce”? I’m willing to say that ending private racial discrimination is a good thing, but that doesn’t make it constitutional.
I hope he does stick to his guns on the Department of Education.
Wouldn’t it have been refreshing if Rand Paul had stuck to his guns on this one?
He has to deal with the mischaracterization of his views. That doesn’t mean he’s changed his views. The government doesn’t respect property rights.
Restricted access is wrong and Rand P. has said so. The government solution is to take away the rights of the property owner. No other solution is allowed to raise it’s voice because accusations of racism trump reason.
I assume you’re also against business licenses at the state and local levels too, right?
Business licenses are a tax and like all other taxes are meant to control the actions of others. I’m in favor of eliminating almost all taxes and limiting use taxes. I want transparency and the multitude of taxes works against that.
Zoning is a separate issue and is reasonable as long as the community has a voice.
Zoning doesn’t respect private property either. But business licenses go well beyond the tax. My town is forcing businesses to make their parking spaces on their own privately owned parking lots a certain width — so that senior citizens can get out of their cars more easily; otherwise, no license. This is no different than stopping business owners from discriminating on the basis of race, right? Same intrusiveness, same lack of respect for private property, right? You probably think so, but the average voter doesn’t.
This is no different than stopping business owners from discriminating on the basis of race, right?
Actually, it is quite a bit different. It’s a simple, clear law, easily enforced with a measuring tape. Race is a lot more complicated, particularly when it comes to employment. It’s one thing to say that someone is discriminated against in a first-come, first-served restaurant. It’s another to say that everyone has a right to a finite number of jobs, and trying to determine why one person is chosen over another. That’s where state interference gets extremely insidious (and has unintended consequences for those it’s intended to help).
Bob-1, when you stop paying your property taxes, then we’ll listen to what you have to say about libertarianism.
We’ll listen, and point, and laugh.
Whereas right now we’re skipping the “listen” stage.
Race is a lot more complicated, particularly when it comes to employment. I watched Dr. Paul’s interview. Employment never came up. He argued, repeatedly, that a private business should have the right to hang a “no blacks allowed” sign up on the front door.
Dr. Paul is not a racist. His libertarian views, however, prevent him from using the government to combat racism in any meaningful way. He’s certainly entitled to those views, and the voters of Kentucky may agree with them, but to complain that he’s somehow a victim for repeatedly expressing those views is simply wrong.
I watched Dr. Paul’s interview. Employment never came up. He argued, repeatedly, that a private business should have the right to hang a “no blacks allowed” sign up on the front door.
And constitutionally, he’s correct.
to complain that he’s somehow a victim for repeatedly expressing those views is simply wrong.
If someone is called a racist for expressing views that are not racist, I’d say that he’s a victim of demagogues. Of course, in today’s environment, all you have to do to be called a racist is to disagree with the president.
Rand – actually, no it’s not constitutional to hang up a “no blacks allowed” sign. It’s called the Commerce Clause.
If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t decide to go down swinging on the Civil Rights Act. Or write a letter to the editor complaining about the Fair Housing Act.
I mean, if you don’t want to be mistaken for an Indian, don’t walk down Main Street wearing warpaint and a feather in your hair. Certainly don’t complain if people in fact think you are an Indian.
It’s called the Commerce Clause.
Sorry, no. Whether or not someone wants to hang a sign on his restaurant has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t decide to go down swinging on the Civil Rights Act. Or write a letter to the editor complaining about the Fair Housing Act.
It is perfectly possible to oppose both those laws without being a racist, despite what demagogues like you say.
…if you don’t want to be mistaken for an Indian, don’t walk down Main Street wearing warpaint and a feather in your hair…
Egad, Chris, you use that sentence to describe the typical American Indian? You disgust me.
Chris is a racist.
For what is worth (not much to Mr. or Ms. Ak4mc, obviously!), I find the restrictions of parking spot width to be an unnecessary intrusion into the property owner’s business. Patrons can decide for themselves whether they have been inconvenienced, and there is no safety issue or injustice going on – it just about convenience, and perhaps getting an upscale look to the business district to raise property values. Racism is much harder to measure, but it is also much more worth stamping out. Whether the government should be doing the stamping is another matter,but I personally find government interference over petty matters a lot more troubling than over weighty ones (why I’m more ready to grant the government latitude during an emergency….)
Is Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand?
I cannot speak for Paul, but I doubt he would say that public institutions should be allowed to discriminate based on race. That’s the big-ticket item, more so than a rogue restaurateur discriminating against customers (at the expense of his own bottom-line.)
True story – old friend of mine applied for a job at a Mexican restraunt, and the manager told him flat-out that they didn’t hire people of his color. To my knowledge, the racism was not “combated”, the world did not end, and he found another job.
I understand and really appreciate the underlying motive: we don’t want to relegate certain people to ghettos or balkanize Americans because we’re supposed to be the great melting pot. I would take the left seriously in this regard were they to throw “Multiculturalism” under the bus. Call me when they do, and then I’ll take them seriously vis-à-vis race relations. In the meantime, I’ll hang with the guys espousing and acting in a colorblind fashion.
Bear in mind he believes that the law originally designed to keep states from engaging in trade wars against each other (q.v. modern day AZ & CA, sigh) effectively allows Congress to regulate anything under the sun (surprisingly for him, a very Austrian view of economics).
No, Simberg. He’s a big fan of the host.
I doubt he would say that public institutions should be allowed to discriminate based on race.
On Rachel Maddow, Rand Paul explicitly said that they should not be allowed to discriminate. His issue is only with private property.
The solution to racism is sunshine. The government should not be dictating morality to anyone.
Same intrusiveness, same lack of respect for private property
Result vary depending on the issue, but yes, it’s the same damned intrusiveness. You can’t outlaw stupidity. The government has no right to tell private individuals what to do with private property that isn’t being used for a criminal activity. Putting a sign in your window that says, “White’s only” is stupid. There are remedies that don’t require criminalizing it.
People have a right to their own thoughts… even stupid thoughts. What happens when the technology comes along to read thoughts, even in general? Should the government install electric dog collars on everyone so they don’t have wrong thoughts?
The solution is not to put the federal government in control. The solution is to let the local community and surrounding communities deal with these issues.
Let’s say a whole state is racist. Not like AZ which is trying to get the federal government to enforce laws already on the books. I’m talking real racism. Which AZ would be if they said, “no jobs for non whites.” 90% of AZ is non white (in my neighborhood anyway.) How long would that last?
I support not doing business with racist, but it needs to be a personal choice like other choices we make which the government should not get involved with.
ken anthony – except for the tiny detail that the free market and sunshine had nearly a century to disinfect the South* but failed, that’s a great idea.
* and the East, West and North, which had their own racial problems.
” Is Rand Paul named after Ayn Rand?
No, Simberg. He’s a big fan of the host.”
So is Simberg named after Ayn Rand?
except for the tiny detail that the free market and sunshine had nearly a century to disinfect the South* but failed, that’s a great idea.
Really? There was a free market in the south before the Civil Rights Act? In what alternate universe did that occur?
So is Simberg named after Ayn Rand?
So Lee is named after Jack Shit (as in don’t know)?
I generally agree with the property rights but playing, devil advocate. And yes the civil rights act uses a different method than what said.
The government can dictate what type of people get a government contract someone who wants to work with the government has to obey the government rules.
Now as far as business that don’t work under government contract. They can be denied government services, such as access to the street/sidewalk where ever public property exists, or public utilities and public Police/fire protection.
Oh wait that last part leads very close to the JIM CROW treatment in the south. Other than the treatment is predicated on a choice/decision and not a unchangeable attribute.
They can be denied government services, such as access to the street/sidewalk where ever public property exists.
You can’t sell property without access to the public roads or provide an easement.
Does everybody miss the fact that Rand P. support 9 of 10 provisions of the civil rights act? Those 9 being sufficient to desegregate and get people to imagine by seeing it in action.
except for the tiny detail that the free market and sunshine had nearly a century to disinfect the South* but failed, that’s a great idea.
Now if the civil rights act had been passed with only the nine provisions that could be considered part of the sunshine. Rand P. would have had no objection to that. Seeing it work in the public sector would have put pressure on the private to go along. Part of the sunshine. Some may have gotten an advantage by excluding some customers, but it would not have lasted long.
The idea that businesses that discriminate would be out-competed by non-discriminators is wrong. Creating a certain ambiance or otherwise distinguishing yourself from the competition is a great way to succeed. Plenty of establishments thrive on the appearance of being exclusive in some way. In soe places, there are enough racists that an establishment can compete for their business.
Also, consider somewhat more modern-day analogous situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/05/us/high-court-rules-that-rotary-clubs-must-admit-women.html
My argument has no bearing on the constitutionality of a legal remedy — I just want to point out a problem with the out-compete argument and the sunshine argument for why there are alternative remedies.
there are enough racists that an establishment can compete for their business.
Now, stretch your brain a little farther… that would be true today then wouldn’t it? You don’t need a sign in your window to run a racist establishment. Can you not see the thought police implications?
What the law does is not eliminate racism. It eliminates honesty. I’d much rather the racism be out in the open.
Keep in mind, we are not talking about eliminating the civil rights act. We are imagining the implication of it not addressing the 10% of it’s provisions that apply to private property because the issur goes far beyond racism. Public property by law would not be able to discriminate (public school, hospitals, etc.)
I don’t want to give my business to any racist organization. Remember a few years back when Denny’s was accused? If they hung a racist sign in their window I wouldn’t accidently support a racist organization… I’d know without a doubt what kind of place it was and not spend my money. Instead, I have breakfast there with no idea about there potential racism. I’d rather know.
I just want to point out a problem…
Which you have while ignoring another problem… giving government a license to steal.
Public pressure would eliminate most racism with no need for a law for almost all private businesses… or do you imagine racist customers would like going to an establishment where a media circus and pickets brought attention to them?
Dr. Paul is not a racist. His libertarian views, however, prevent him from using the government to combat racism in any meaningful way.
A good idea right there. I want a weaker government precisely so it can’t act “in any meaningful way” on a host of problems and issues that I don’t think should be the business of government.
Karl Hallowell – so you don’t think the government should protect its citizens? Because that’s exactly what the Civil Rights Act did.
His libertarian views, however, prevent him from using the government to combat racism in any meaningful way.
This is a false statement. To repeat, Rand P. endorses the public provisions of the civil rights bill. He only has issues, which his detractors willfully choose to ignore, regarding government control of private property… a form of theft.
For the umpteenth time, the “Commerce Clause” was written to prevent *states* from imposing trade restrictions against one another. The concept of regulating business in the manner it is done today didn’t even exist. It’s a usurpation that was completely unforeseen.
ken anthony – private discrimination was a major factor in Jim Crow. White people seen as violating the color line were socially and economically shunned. If we hadn’t forced businesses providing a public accomidation to desegregate, it would not have happened.
MfK – Supreme Court cases going back to at least to the mid 1800s disagree with your interpretation.
If we hadn’t forced businesses providing a public accommodation to desegregate, it would not have happened.
…and you know this, how?
The fact is you don’t and can’t know it. Light is the disinfectant. It wasn’t the law that changed things, it was people marching and bringing attention to the issues. This is one issue the media would give attention to.
BTW, even with the law people still segregate. Today. Right now. It’s the nature of humans to segregate. Ever heard of chinatown? Ever walked in a cafe in a town of less than a few thousand? You might take a lawyer with you, but the real solution is time and enlightenment.
White people seen as violating the color line were socially and economically shunned.
There’s also a tipping point where people start to fall all over themselves to show they are not racists. It even contributed to the election of our latest president. They call it white guilt.
ken anthony – the fact is that for nearly 100 years, despite protests and other peer pressures, segregation existed. The fact is that, even after social pressures changed, it took the 82nd Airborne to desegregate Little Rock schools. The fact is, even after social pressures changed, it took Federal marshalls to desegregate Ole Miss.
Your theory is in direct conflict with historical fact. Usually when fact contradicts theory, theory is the thing that changes.
A mere assertion. If you feel the CRA was necessary, understand that it was to undo Jim Crow — one government act to undo another. Absent one, would the other have been necessary? I know what you’ll say, but we lack the alternate universe to give us that evidence.