I didn’t say he was a 'true libertarian. He is too much libertarian with his favoriing business owner’s rights to discriminate against members of a racial minority in America.
I didn’t say they were. Rand Paul supports racist shop owners rights over the minority population that they discriminate against. That is what Title II in the 1964 Civil Rights act criminalized.
Marching Nazis have always had the right to march wherever in public they choose to march if they do not violate any laws. It has nothing to do with Obama and it has nothing to do with the 1964 Civil Rights Act Title II that Rand Paul opposses.
Rand Paul’s racist business owners can march with racist signs in black neigborhoods too if the commit no crimes. Perhaps some of them are neo-nazis anyway.
Let me spell it out for you. We all agree to “protect the right of racists to be racists”; we just disagree on where to draw the line. There is no objectively determinable way to draw such a line.
No. The question here rather is, do you agree or disagree that it was proper in 1964 for the Federal Government to make it a crime for owners of a private business that is open for public business to discriminate against any potential customers because of their race. So what is your position?
Senator Rand Paul disagrees and Human Action wrote about Rand Paul siding with racist business owners having the right to discriminate, “Sounds fine to me”
First, Rand Paul doesn’t seem to care all that much about the Civil Rights Act:
Bolding mine.
A far more accurate summary would be, “When pressed on a law from 1964, Rand Paul stated that the law shouldn’t blur the line between public and private property.”
And Title II of the Civil Rights Act criminalized the practice of racial discrimination in certain businesses, such as hotels, movie theaters, and restaurants.
Yes, it deals with public private property, a distinction with dangerous implications.
I don’t think private property should be treated as quasi-public, no. Discrimination on private property is not a matter for the legislature to intervene in.
So you can see why libertarians are not interchangeable with conservatives.
This is largely correct. Different political affiliations have different beliefs.
Ok, but that does not mean being anti-Civil Rights movement or anti-race equality. Jim Crow wasn’t a voluntary decision by business owners and government workers, it was the law. The free market will not take care of itself when desegregation is illegal!
To academic scholar yes but try explaining that to hard core conservative and some not so true liberties or tea party movement that can’t even pass second grade school work.
Most liberals laugh in there face.
I think you mean segregation laws for blacks that would be contradictory to libertarians belief.
I think the large majority of people are able to identify what ideology they follow. You won’t find right-wing conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan schools calling themselves libertarians. The Tea Party is a special case, in that it’s a broad, informal coalition of multiple viewpoints.
Depends on which laws you mean. Laws mandating segregation? Libertarians would oppose them. Laws prohibiting discrimination by a private business? Libertarians would oppose those too. So, saying that libertarians are anti-Civil Rights movement only makes sense if you’re referring to that second type of law.
IF private property is used for Commerce that is regulated by many legislatures and government agencies, such as ‘health departments’ do you agree with Rand Paul that the owners of those businesses have a right to both conduct commerce with the public and discriminate against potential customers because of their race?
So, on a fine April morning a group of black families go to Church in Leesburg Virginia and plan an outing dressed in their Sunday best to go to the Buck Country Buffet over in Frederiksburg Maryland to meet some friends nearby and they are told that in Maryland business owners have the right serve whomever they wish and Buck County Buffet does not serve colored people.
The Feds do not have the authority to intervene says you.
Correct. I sharply disagree with the ultra-broad reading of the Commerce Clause, and the simultaneous weakening of the 10th Amendment, that occured for about 60 years in the U.S., and which included Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.
More to the point, and setting aside questions of plenary power and such, it’s morally wrong to infringe on property rights in the way Title II does.