# Rand Paul's interview on Rachel Maddow - A real Libertarian meets the real world **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157 "2010-05-20T18:07:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/61 "2010-05-20T21:27:08Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > :smack: > > Explain please how the approach worked and why there was such civil unrest and legislation passed. Because certain people were kept in their place. Those people were kept in their place, and lots of folks thought that was just dandy. Paul and Son seem to fit in that category. Libertarianism sounds good (or at least just and “fair”), but neither of those actually HAPPEN once they bump up against the real world - as our OP pointed out in his title. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/62 "2010-05-20T21:30:53Z")
I like the author below, do not think Paul is maybe a racist. > [@](#): > > And the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein blogged, “I take Paul at his word that he’s not a racist. What he is, however, is an ideological extremist.” [http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/05/20/127009788/kentucky-gop-unity-rally-on-saturday-mongiardo-d-won-t-seek-recanvass](http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2010/05/20/127009788/kentucky-gop-unity-rally-on-saturday-mongiardo-d-won-t-seek-recanvass) It is not whether he is an extremist that offends my sensibilities, it is his extremism in defense of his principles (an extremism that blinds him), that offends my sensibilities. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/63 "2010-05-20T21:33:27Z")
[A similar sentiment](http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-and-civil-rights/) expressed by John Cole at Balloon Juice: > [@](#): > > What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/64 "2010-05-20T21:37:08Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Because certain people were kept in their place. Those people were kept in their place, and lots of folks thought that was just dandy. Paul and Son seem to fit in that category. > > Libertarianism sounds good (or at least just and “fair”), but neither of those actually HAPPEN once they bump up against the real world - as our OP pointed out in his title. > > -Joe your irony is noted. My point is the approach didn’t work because people were not kept in their place - that is one of the myths that some racists cling to. America saw civil unrest and the Democratic party was split asunder when civil rights legislation was debated and passed. The GOP Southern Strategy was born along with the myths of a bygone era of peace, and tranquility and nuttier than all – the delusion of business sovereignty. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/65 "2010-05-20T21:37:59Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I’m saying that there’s a certain attitude more common amongst liberals that if something is right, then it’s fine to be made law by the government. There’s no consideration of whether or not it’s something with unintended consequences or whether it should be left up to the individual. So quite simply, “racism is bad” becomes “let’s make all sorts of laws that stamp out racism”. There’s not a position of “I find it morally wrong, but this isn’t an issue for the government to solve with law”. Actually, there’s a perfect analogy for this that resonates with liberals - abortion. There’s lots of moderate pro-choice people who think abortion is bad, but who don’t think there should be laws against it. This is exactly the sort of argument a consistent libertarian could push to demonstrate that this is a matter of higher principle. Except Paul can’t make that analogy, because he wants to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion. What was that about things with unintended consequences that should maybe be left up to individuals? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/66 "2010-05-20T21:38:52Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Tell that to his Dad. His Dad has essentially the same position, and he’s been in Congress for 30 years. > > Rand’s problem is that he just didn’t give a good answer. There’s a defensible argument for allowing businesses to choose. Not an expert on Paul the Jr or the elder so I’ll take your word for that. What is that defensible argument? I ask because it seems to me that when the rubber meets the road, there was an excellent real world example of thousands of businesses and millions of business owners choosing who they wanted to serve in the south and elsewhere for over a century, and look how that turned out. The hope that discrminatiing small businesses would somehow be shamed, blackballed or boycotted or into behaving better if they were allowed to discriminate today is (IMO) naive. People LOVE to discriminate if they can get away with it. Bars barring blacks would have a HUGE following with white people. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/67 "2010-05-20T21:40:23Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > [A similar sentiment](http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-and-civil-rights/) expressed by John Cole at Balloon Juice: This guy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson with his delusions of the existence of an agrarian utopia that existed pre Anglo-Saxon Britain, and one that could exist in an America that was on the verge of an industrial revolution the likes of which the world would stand in awe of. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/68 "2010-05-20T21:44:18Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Actually, there’s a perfect analogy for this that resonates with liberals - abortion. There’s lots of moderate pro-choice people who think abortion is bad, but who don’t think there should be laws against it. This is exactly the sort of argument a consistent libertarian could push to demonstrate that this is a matter of higher principle. > > Except Paul can’t make that analogy, because he wants to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion. What was that about things with unintended consequences that should maybe be left up to individuals? 😛 Nope. The analogy is about as flawed as can be. Abortion is about the right of a woman to determine what is done with her body. No matter where you stand on the issue, abortion is about a woman and her pregnancy. Civil rights is about how institutions and people, society, treats citizens differently. This is not even equivalent to Apples and Oranges, which are both fruit. This is more like Apples and Manifolds. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/69 "2010-05-20T21:47:54Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Not an expert on Paul the Jr or the elder so I’ll take your word for that. > > What is that defensible argument? I ask because it seems to me that when the rubber meets the road, there was an excellent real world example of thousands of businesses and millions of business owners choosing who they wanted to serve in the south and elsewhere for over a century, and look how that turned out. The hope that discrminatiing small businesses would somehow be shamed, blackballed or boycotted or into behaving better if they were allowed to discriminate today is (IMO) naive. People LOVE to discriminate if they can get away with it. Bars barring blacks would have a HUGE following with white people. People self discriminate. But if you lied in a mixed urban area with few racial issues, your argument falls apart. Bars baring blacks in areas where blacks and whites get along, would suffer as people would not go where their friends and equals are not welcome. Your outlook and more is projecting outwards. Not that there is anything wrong with that. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/70 "2010-05-20T21:57:19Z")
> [@](#): > > People self discriminate. But if you lied in a mixed urban area with few racial issues, your argument falls apart. Bars baring blacks in areas where blacks and whites get along, would suffer as people would not go where their friends and equals are not welcome. And what about those places where blacks and whites don’t get along so well, like, say, most of the South in the 1950s? And how do these black and white friends meet each other in the first place, if segregation is widespread in society? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/71 "2010-05-20T22:13:22Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > To clarify a point of my argument, you mention “through force of law that desegregation happened” and if you’re referring to public schools, I’m all for that. Along with public busses, public drinking fountains, all that - things that are publically owned or government run absolutely should be unable to discriminate by law based on protected classes. Should a business that is allowed to discriminate be able to use public law enforcement, fire fighting and other public services that allow to operate? The reality is that the Government is not a libertarian construct who’s sole purpose is the enforcement and protection of property rights. It is far more complicated than that, it is a social construct as much as a legal construct. I was a strong libertarian bout fifteen years ago ( I remember spending a week at George Mason University in the summer at a Libertarian workshop), so I completely understand the concept. It is not an invalid philosophical concept, but it is a pretty invalid practical one. I do not for a second think Rand Paul is a racist, he is an idealist in the most generous terminology and a idealogue to be less generous. The real question is can Paul understand that his ideology is philosphical exercise that cannot exist sopurely in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/72 "2010-05-20T22:15:31Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And what about those places where blacks and whites don’t get along so well, like, say, most of the South in the 1950s? And how do these black and white friends meet each other in the first place, if segregation is widespread in society? It’s obvious. Discrimination would reign supreme. Unless of course you believe in the invisible hand of free market racial equality. I did write: “People self discriminate. But if you lied in a mixed urban area with few racial issues,” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/73 "2010-05-20T22:16:56Z")
One thing I will point out is that we are only seeing part of the interview here. I can’t find a transcript (only the audio on RM’s blog), but msnbc and fox are both playing clips today where RP said (and I’m paraphrasing): _There were 10 provisions in the Civil Rights Act, 9 of which apply to the Government and which I would support. I would have sought to modify the provision pertaining to private businesses._ Although I don’t think that is quite adequate (and note that I still haven’t seen the full transcript), that is a lot better than what has been reported in this thread so far. ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/74 "2010-05-20T22:22:54Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Should a business that is allowed to discriminate be able to use public law enforcement, fire fighting and other public services that allow to operate? The reality is that the Government is not a libertarian construct who’s sole purpose is the enforcement and protection of property rights. It is far more complicated than that, it is a social construct as much as a legal construct. > > I was a strong libertarian bout fifteen years ago ( I remember spending a week at George Mason University in the summer at a Libertarian workshop), so I completely understand the concept. It is not an invalid philosophical concept, but it is a pretty invalid practical one. > > I do not for a second think Rand Paul is a racist, he is an idealist in the most generous terminology and a idealogue to be less generous. The real question is can Paul understand that his ideology is philosphical exercise that cannot exist sopurely in the real world. thank you. I always thought adults who are Libertarians have an arrested development in the psycho-social areas of the brain as well as in the areas that govern where reasoning meets up with intellect. I’ve also, never met a libertarian who on principle, refused all government assistance or any and all benefits derived from such. I’m sure they exist out there somewhere. I just haven’t met any. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/75 "2010-05-20T22:26:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing I will point out is that we are only seeing part of the interview here. It seems unlikely that Paul’s position is being misrepresented. In [a letter to the editor in 2002](http://pageonekentucky.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-made-same-racial-comments-in-2002/) he wrote: > [@](#): > > _Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate._ and > [@](#): > > _A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin._ ---
**Author:** ![Dante\_Fevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Dante\_Fevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dante_Fevah)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/76 "2010-05-20T22:26:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing I will point out is that we are only seeing part of the interview here. I can’t find a transcript (only the audio on RM’s blog), but msnbc and fox are both playing clips today where RP said (and I’m paraphrasing): > > _There were 10 provisions in the Civil Rights Act, 9 of which apply to the Government and which I would support. I would have sought to modify the provision pertaining to private businesses._ > > Although I don’t think that is quite adequate (and note that I still haven’t seen the full transcript), that is a lot better than what has been reported in this thread so far. All laws are the results of compromises. Individual politicians and leaders who ushered the civil rights acts into law, could take the stand Rand Paul is taking. Having issues with particulars of a bill or set of laws is irrelevant to the issue facing RP. What is disingenuous, is what RP was asked and how decided to answer or not answer. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/77 "2010-05-20T22:27:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One thing I will point out is that we are only seeing part of the interview here. I can’t find a transcript (only the audio on RM’s blog), but msnbc and fox are both playing clips today where RP said (and I’m paraphrasing): > > _There were 10 provisions in the Civil Rights Act, 9 of which apply to the Government and which I would support. I would have sought to modify the provision pertaining to private businesses._ > > Although I don’t think that is quite adequate (and note that I still haven’t seen the full transcript), that is a lot better than what has been reported in this thread so far. I watched the entire interview. The discussion here does not conflict in any significant way with the actuality of Paul’s statements. He is not being misrepresented. He really did come off as an ideologue whose philosophical position overcame his personal distaste (granting him the truth of his assertions) for discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/78 "2010-05-20T22:27:39Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > People self discriminate. But if you lied in a mixed urban area with few racial issues, your argument falls apart. Bars baring blacks in areas where blacks and whites get along, would suffer as people would not go where their friends and equals are not welcome. > > Your outlook and more is projecting outwards. Not that there is anything wrong with that. :rolleyes: “Projecting?” How old are you? Seriously, are you a teenager? Your adolescent rolleyes that I am somehow wildly overstating the case for an explosion of contained latent racism becoming active in 2010 if it were socially permitted is something only someone quite young and sheltered could believe. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/79 "2010-05-20T22:31:17Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > I watched the entire interview. The discussion here does not conflict in any significant way from the actuality of Paul’s statements. He is not being misrepresented. He really did come off as an ideologue whose philosophical position overcame his personal distaste (granting him the truth of his assertions) for discrimination. I disagree. Several posters have said he should have emphasized his strong opposition to government enforced discrimination and contrast that with private actions. Well, in fact he did do so, even if not as well as he could have. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/80 "2010-05-20T22:31:59Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > Paul isn’t being asked about his own businesses. When you ask “do you think businesses should be restricted from discriminating against protected classes?” you ignore why some classes need protection. You make it sound like all men are treated equal and some having ‘extra’ or ‘protected’ status is somehow an advantage others do not have. I did no such thing. When I brought in the term, I was pointing out that people already can discriminate with their business - except specifically against protected classes. I used the term protected classes because as far as I know that’s exactly how they’re described in law. I wasn’t making any sort of judgement on it. > [@](#): > > When you generalize to this extent “do you think business owners should have the right to choose who to serve?” you close the door on the racial or other aspects of the argument(s). In effect, you clean up real ugliness. No, I think accepting that businesses are free to discriminate on every criteria logically leads to all possibilities, including plain old racial discrimination. But it’s a relatively neutral question, one that wouldn’t necesarily make you go into automatic defensive mode, the way “can business ban blacks?” does. > [@](#): > > Businesses have indivisible rights? No, people who own businesses have a right to their property. I mean - if for whatever reason you won’t let black people in your house - even black plumbers or cable TV installers - you’re a racist asshole, but it’s legal, because it’s your property and you have ultimate control over it. Is that so foreign an idea? Obviously a home isn’t targetted at the general public, but it’s basically the same concept. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Because such a law would be unenforceable. You can’t monitor or control what people think. However, you CAN enforce laws on how people ACT on those thoughts. As long as you bring up enforcibility, I do wonder how effectively the laws were enforced in the early days. I wasn’t around, I don’t know - could a business owner say “hey, get out of here, I don’t like that shirt you’re wearing” to every black person? Or making up whatever other legal discriminatory excuse. > [@](#): > > It’s as though you’re saying because we can’t stop people from \*thinking \*about burglary, there should be no laws against burglary. :rolleyes: Burglary is an actual crime where one individual harms another. It’s a fundamental violation of rights. I don’t think not being able to be served at every establishment is a natural right. If I go into a pizza shop and the guy throws me out for not liking an offensive slogan on my t-shirt, I don’t think my civil rights, or natural rights in general, have been violated. So this situation isn’t analogous to murder or robbery or any of that, I don’t think. There are cases where this does become a problem, like if the only pharmacy in town won’t give needed medication to someone, but that’s the exception. > [@](#): > > We tried this approach prior to the civil rights legislation in the 1960s. It didn’t work. > [@CannyDan](#): > > The simple fact is that force of public condemnation wasn’t sufficient to remove segregation from the general society. A “whites only” lunch counter was hardly going to be driven out of business by boycotts of the good people of, say, Birmingham, or many other places both south and north. That’s the reality for minority groups-- they don’t have the power of numbers to protect themselves. Clearly enough, market forces aren’t going to be their salvation. > > And so the force of law is required, and the force of law is provided by the Constitution, for just such situations, for the protection of the minority from the will of the majority. There’s an assumption here that it was the laws against discrimination that has propelled us to so much progress in the last half century. I’m not sure that’s the case. I mean - there was a culture that demanded a change, and that’s what lead to the laws - but even if the laws (and by laws I specifically mean against private business discrimination against protected classes) were never put into effect, that cultural movement would still be there. Our society would’ve become less racist anyway. I’m not convinced the prohibition of discrimination by private businesses was pivotol to this. Again, I’m 100% all for everything public becoming desegregated and being prevented from discrimination. I suspect that if we had schools desegregated, public busses without seperate seating classes, public parks without segregated drinking fountains, etc. combined with a culture which obviously was becoming less and less tolerant of racism, we’d probably be in the same boat we’re in today for the most part. You want to make it sound like this one particular issue was the critical component of all social progress made in the last few decades, but I doubt it’s true. > [@Merijeek](#): > > Businesses are blameless, holy creatures that need pay no need to any government or group of “citizens”. Anything they do wrong is clearly no wrong because they did it. > > -Joe No one has said anything in this thread to which this is remotely a relevant or logical response to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=5)