# 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:** 6
**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, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/101 "2010-05-20T23:36:30Z")
I don’t think anyone cares about it terribly much. I don’t think it’s a big issue. But if you ask me what my stance on the issue is I’ll give it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/102 "2010-05-20T23:43:11Z")
I’d like to point out that Rand Paul has been on Maddow before. He used her to launch his campaign, in fact. So I don’t think he should have been surprised at her angle, or attitude. He knew what he was walking in to. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlH14hWxHMk) It’s also not like Maddow was the first person to call him on the Civil Rights Act issue. > **[Rand Paul Says He Has A Tea Party 'Mandate'](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985068)** > > Rand Paul, the winner in Tuesday night's Senate primary race in Kentucky, tells Robert Siegel that he has a Tea Party mandate -- a mandate that calls for good government, term limits, and a balanced budget amendment, among other things. He talks... NPR did it first. He weaseled better there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/103 "2010-05-20T23:45:07Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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? 😛 If this is actually his position, then he isn’t a libertarian, no matter what label he sticks on his forehead. “Libertarian” is what an extreme right-winger calls himself when he no longer wants to be placed under that latter classification. [This is not to say there are no genuine libertarians-hell I’d love to see the real deal actually run for Congress somewhere-if anyone here knows of some feel free to drop names] ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/104 "2010-05-20T23:45:16Z")
> [@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: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. I can find no holes in Paul’s argument. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/105 "2010-05-20T23:46:07Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > Government was the good guy. You are masking the distinctions between local, state and national government. Rosa Parks and civil rights leaders fought local and state governments and sometimes national government. But only a complete moron would argue it was not the federal government that ushered in racial equality – sometimes at the point of a gun. Jim Crow was daring the federal government to act. _At that moment_ the federal government was the good guy. My point is that discrimination against blacks has often been enabled by government - made worse by government laws that either overtly discriminated, or which gave whites an advantage through unequal application of the law. The same is true of other government regulations - instituted to do good, they often have the effect of being perverted and controlled by people to gain advantage over others. Regulatory capture. General Electric has been kissing the ass of the government for years now, and as a result it’s doing great, with lots of big juicy government contracts. Do you know what was different between Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers? Goldman Sachs gave a lot more money to government, and employs a lot more ex-Senators and Congressmen. Lehman brothers didn’t. So… Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of government bailouts, and Lehman Brothers got hung out to dry. Aside from explicit laws like Jim Crow laws, the fact is that Whites in the south enjoyed a system wherein the weight of government was always on their side. > [@](#): > > Free middle class blacks did the same thing in northern cities. Did you know that? Yep, places like Boston and New York had thriving middle class black neighborhoods – doctors, lawyers, etc… Yes, I know. I was talking about the south here. There have always been areas where blacks were free from the kinds of systematic discrimination they faced in the south. Not that they didn’t face discrimination, but it wasn’t backed by the entire power structure. > [@](#): > > I gave up a long time ago. If you were only as honest as you are ignorant. If only you were as clear about what exactly you saw wrong in my message as you are hostile. Or if only you were as good at reading the rules regarding personal attacks in Great Debates as you are at tossing them around. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/106 "2010-05-20T23:53:32Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@Dante Fevah](#): > > > > I didn’t say you made a judgment on it, but… > > > > Yes you do "make it sound like…those having “‘extra’ or ‘protected’ status” somehow having an unequal “advantage.” You may not mean to, but you do. > > > > Where you are “pointing out that people already can discriminate with their business - except specifically against protected classes.” you are saying all men could be discriminated against, if only for the ‘protected’ status of minorities (We are talking about minorities, no?). Take away the special protections for minorities and we are all potentially discriminated against equally. > > This is nonsense. I said “protected classes” because that’s what the law says. It’s faster to say protected classes than saying discrimination based on age, creed, nationality, religion, etc. etc. > > My point in even bringing it up in the first place is that we generally concede that a business owner has control over his business - that he can discriminate by your attitude, your clothes, your hairstyle, even kicking out every third person for no reason. We concede the power to discriminate for a business owner generally, it’s just that it’s only legal for specific protected cases like race/religion/etc. I have not been arguing over your use of the term ‘protected classes’ You are complaining/arguing that those who get a protected status have an advantage. You are also arguing that businesses should be able to do discriminate against everyone equally. Not all discrimination is equal. case in point: discriminating against people, without shirts vs race case in point: refusing service because of looks vs discrimination against ALL blacks regardless of looks > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@Dante Fevah](#): > > > > Only somebody ashamed of or denying they discriminate based on race would be defensive. > > Bullshit. She was trying to get him into a “yes, businesses should be allowed to ban blacks” soundbite, and that’s why he was defensive. Again, many people do not conceptually understand the concept of not being racist and yet not supporting laws which prevent private businesses from discriminated against protected classes. So for an unsophisticated audience, she was trying to make it sound like he was pro-segregation. You are speaking to motive. Motive you have no evidence of. If you want to demonize Maddow, that is your right. Just remember when you go down this road you open the door. Stick to principles over personalities and you can have civil discussion > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@Dante Fevah](#): > > > > We are discussing discrimination based on race. Not being "free to discriminate on every criteria " > > Right, the libertarian philosophy here allows discrimination on every criteria. You can say “you advocate allowing discrimination based on race!” and that implies the intent on desiring racial discrimination, when it’s more accurate to say that you advocate allowing businesses to discriminate based on whatever criteria they see fit. Including, but not especially limited to, racial discrimination. There is nothing accurate here. It is all mostly disingenuous claptrap. You may not know what you are saying. I have given you that benefit of the doubt earlier, but remember, just because you follow a dogmatic approach or parrot rules laid out by others, you will get no free ride. \*\*Separating racial discrimination from discrimination based on other criteria is to belittle what exactly racial discrimination is all about. When society allows a business to refuse service to anyone it is not sanctioning hatred and dehumanization of others. When a society allows racial discrimination it suffers deeply on many levels. Even the slave holding founding fathers acknowledged this in their writings. Using your logic, Slavery should never have been outlawed in Britain, Europe and America. We all should have waited fro the invisible hand of free society to adjust on it’s own. No social engineering here. \*\* > [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@Dante Fevah](#): > > > > The concepts of a home and a public business are not the same. > > > > Your comparisons are unequal (sorry for the pun). Who you invite into your own home is a private matter. Who you deny service to is a public matter. > > > > Refusing to allow a black or brown tradesman to work on your house would be a private matter. you are not licensed to allow entry into your own home. You do not ask societal permission to spend your money. A store owner who refuses to service others is asking society for permission to make money – a license. > > But this isn’t some intrinsic aspect of the nature of reality, it’s a social construct. We decide how much businesses are treated like home, what the property owner is allowed to do. Rand advocates a change in policy so that businesses are more under control of the property owner. Business owner, property owner, you keep jumping around. There are distinctions with differences in there that you keep demanding we gloss over or jump over. The social construct is what we society say it is. Some of us want racial discrimination in places of business that serve the public, to be illegal. Some of us don’t. Property is sacrosanct to some people. To others it is cherished but not at the expense of the whole of society. When there are competing principles some people will always err on the side on property over the common good. But we are not talking about property when we are talking about the ability to make money off commerce. We are talking about commerce and it’s regulations. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/107 "2010-05-20T23:55:10Z")
I don’t think Dr. Paul is a racist, I think he is an ideologue. And he very clearly stands for a central dogma of his political philosophy, the primacy of property rights over others, the notion that private property can trump social justice. One is welcome to one’s political philosophy, though I would advise against taking one too seriously. And one is welcome to the dogma that property rights are the Crown Jewels of human rights, and the rest are merely included as afterthoughts and grace notes, but I’m agin it. If property rights stand athwart social justice, they should be bent to accommodate. Only so far as need be, certainly, but still. One would hope that they would be bent voluntarily, as we appeal to the better angels of our natures. Further, it could only have been done by fiat and government intervention, and for more than just overcoming that actual racists in our midst, but to offer cover for the timid. Many, if not most, white people in racist settings knew that change was coming, knew it was right. But who wants to be the first lunch counter to integrate and offend so many white patrons? But when its made a legal matter, well, they can shrug and say “Hey, its the law…” But perhaps more important, everybody does it at once, nobody has to step out of the line and volunteer. A lot of libertarian and conservative positions and agenda depend on that central dogma: the primacy of property rights. I’ve heard some deranged persons claim that property rights are the very source of human rights, whereupon I try to make soothing noises and back away quietly to the exit. That dogma won’t hunt, but you’re welcome to it. ---
**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, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/108 "2010-05-20T23:59:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > _At that moment_ the federal government was the good guy. My point is that discrimination against blacks has often been enabled by government - made worse by government laws that either overtly discriminated, or which gave whites an advantage through unequal application of the law. > > The same is true of other government regulations - instituted to do good, they often have the effect of being perverted and controlled by people to gain advantage over others. Regulatory capture. General Electric has been kissing the ass of the government for years now, and as a result it’s doing great, with lots of big juicy government contracts. Do you know what was different between Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers? Goldman Sachs gave a lot more money to government, and employs a lot more ex-Senators and Congressmen. Lehman brothers didn’t. So… Goldman Sachs was the beneficiary of government bailouts, and Lehman Brothers got hung out to dry. > > Aside from explicit laws like Jim Crow laws, the fact is that Whites in the south enjoyed a system wherein the weight of government was always on their side. > > Yes, I know. I was talking about the south here. There have always been areas where blacks were free from the kinds of systematic discrimination they faced in the south. Not that they didn’t face discrimination, but it wasn’t backed by the entire power structure. > > If only you were as clear about what exactly you saw wrong in my message as you are hostile. Or if only you were as good at reading the rules regarding personal attacks in Great Debates as you are at tossing them around. First, I apologized earlier. Hostile? I prefer to say strident. If you consider ‘ignorant’ an insult then maybe you are using a definition other than the one intended. Ignorant is being unaware of. You seem to be arguing that some laws and regulations end up being abused so we should stop making laws and regulations. Using your logic, we ought to get rid of the corrupt Pentagon, Police Dept and Fire Dept. We can do better privatizing things with a volunteer market. We already know a private military would rape us more…see: Iraq and Afghanistan contractors. ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/109 "2010-05-21T00:01:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A lot of libertarian and conservative positions and agenda depend on that central dogma: the primacy of property rights. I’ve heard some deranged persons claim that property rights are the very source of human rights, whereupon I try to make soothing noises and back away quietly to the exit. That dogma won’t hunt, but you’re welcome to it. I think I agree 100% ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/110 "2010-05-21T00:02:39Z")
Of course, it all depends on your definition of “social justice”. I’m not going to feel I’ve been acted upon unjustly if some asshole decides he doesn’t want me at his (privately owned) lunch counter any more than I’m going to feel an injustice at not being invited into someone’s home. ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/111 "2010-05-21T00:04:57Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I should make myself clearer about black-owned businesses vs Chinese businesses, because I didn’t quite get my point across. > > There’s an old saying that goes something like, “When trade crosses a border, tanks don’t.” Countries that become economically entwined tend not to go to war against each other, because destroying the other side’s economy destroys your own. > > The same is true of discrimination. The great thing about markets is that they encourage people to work together out of their own self-interest. And when people work together, they develop social and economic bonds that tie them more closely and foster understanding. > > The Chinese who opened businesses would often serve anyone - the Chinese laundry is a stereotype, but it’s an example of what I’m talking about. The same thing happened with immigrants from other countries - Jews, Italians, Japanese, you name it. All of them suffered discrimination, but they all rose above it and established their own niches in American economic life. > > But the blacks and the natives have had a hard time of it. The biggest reason is because they were segregated. Blacks could start businesses, but it was hard for them to reach out to white clientele, or get support from white businesses (you can open a blacks-only auto shop, but what are you going to do when the white-owned parts supplier won’t sell you parts because he’s worried about violent recriminations from other whites while the sheriff looks the other way?). And if blacks did manage to create a business that competed against local white businesses in successful fashion, it would find its supplies drying up or would be subject to outright violence. > > The same happened to natives, here in Canada and in the U.S. In both cases, they were shuffled onto reservations, and given enough subsidies to keep them quiet - and to keep them from striving to achieve. We isolated them from trade, institutionalized poverty, provided them with crappy schools, and ignored them. > > But look what’s happened in recent years - the native American bands have found an economic niche - casinos. Because their placement on reservations gave them some isolation from federal regulation, they could open casinos when others could not. These aren’t casinos catering to natives - they’re casinos catering mostly to white people. The result is that native Americans and native Canadians have seen their wealth and political power grow (the Indian bands are now the biggest lobbyists in Washington). They’ve taken their wealth and used it to improve their schools and start other businesses. This has caused them to gain stature and respect, and to reduce discrimination (in Canada, discrimination against natives has declined dramatically in the last twenty years). > > So here’s a case where the American Native populations have had a certain civil rights revolution of their own - only in this case it happened because of a _lack_ of government regulation. Native American’s and their lives have been so heavily regulated it is not funny. The only reason they made money with casinos is because of government regulations banning them on non Native lands. Why are casinos banned? Christian conservatism. SO what should black do. start their own nation and open up casinos? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/112 "2010-05-21T00:21:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Of course, it all depends on your definition of “social justice”. I’m not going to feel I’ve been acted upon unjustly if some asshole decides he doesn’t want me at his (privately owned) lunch counter any more than I’m going to feel an injustice at not being invited into someone’s home. And what if that asshole is black, and decides he also doesn’t want any of your other white friends at his lunch counter, and his clientele is exclusively black every time you walk by? How are you feeling about that? ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/113 "2010-05-21T00:27:54Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > And what if that asshole is black, and decides he also doesn’t want any of your other white friends at his lunch counter, and his clientele is exclusively black every time you walk by? How are you feeling about that? I’d feel the same. It’s his business, just like it’s his house. ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/114 "2010-05-21T00:28:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Of course, it all depends on your definition of “social justice”. I’m not going to feel I’ve been acted upon unjustly if some asshole decides he doesn’t want me at his (privately owned) lunch counter any more than I’m going to feel an injustice at not being invited into someone’s home. Your private home is a public place? If you don’t mind me asking,… never mind. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/115 "2010-05-21T00:42:40Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That private businesses should have the right to discriminate against whom ever they please, for what ever reason? That is what I heard from Rand Paul. > > If so, I hope conservatives will continue trying to articulate that message whenever they have the opportunity. In that video posted by the OP, he never once says he’s in favor of discrimination of any kind. In fact, he says he rejects it. ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/116 "2010-05-21T00:43:48Z")
> [@](#): > > (Mr. Paul’s campaign issued a statement late Thursday morning following the Maddow interview, in which he said he supported the Civil Rights Act. It appears below.) [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/pauls-views-on-civil-rights-cause-a-stir/?hp](http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/pauls-views-on-civil-rights-cause-a-stir/?hp) Seems like Mr. Paul’s struggle to stay pure has ended. He now has campaign statements correcting his own words. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/117 "2010-05-21T00:51:01Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > Your private home is a public place? If you don’t mind me asking,… > never mind. 😕 Private clubs aren’t public places either. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/118 "2010-05-21T00:52:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’d feel the same. It’s his business, just like it’s his house. You are open-minded to an almost holy, saintly degree, then. To be more accurate, how would you feel if EVERY restaurant in the town in which you lived didn’t allow you to eat there, or, at best, made you sit in a separate section of the restaurant, away from the “real human beings,” where the tables were dirty, the floor unswept, and the service bad? Well, you say, then surely someone will open an integrated restaurant that will offer better service, and all of my kind will flock to it, resulting in financial gain for said establishment, and a loss to the discriminators! Except then the owner of the integrated restaurant will wake up one night to find a large cross burning on his front lawn… ---
**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 21, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/119 "2010-05-21T00:53:00Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Private clubs aren’t public places either. No they are not. And they are regulated differently public places. I’ve attended a few private clubs over the years. Never joined. If they discriminate I have no issues with it, as I went with friends and no friends were denied entrance. btw, early on I did make a clear distinction between public places and private places ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157/120 "2010-05-21T00:57:11Z")
> [@Dante\_Fevah](#): > > You seem to be arguing that some laws and regulations end up being abused so we should stop making laws and regulations. Using your logic, we ought to get rid of the corrupt Pentagon, Police Dept and Fire Dept. We can do better privatizing things with a volunteer market. We already know a private military would rape us more…see: Iraq and Afghanistan contractors. ‘Some laws’ are abused in the same way I guess that ‘some businesses’ were discriminatory. You downplay the role of government in discrimination, and emphasize the role of business, and I’m doing the opposite. I don’t think you realize the extent to which blacks and other minorities are _still_ oppressed by laws that liberals support. For example, the Davis-Bacon act was enacted under pressure from large, mainly white firms who were upset that black people were undercutting their wages. Today, the Davis-Bacon act basically ensures that union workers are hired for public works projects, which freezes out the poor people from employment in areas where public works would do the most good for local employment. The Davis-Bacon act is heartily defended by Democrats, because Big Labor benefits greatly from it, and Democrats are in the pocket of Big Labor. Bringing it back around to this thread, Ron Paul has in the past spearheaded efforts to get the Davis-Bacon act repealed. If his son had been thinking a little more clearly, he might have brought this up as a counter-example of how government colludes with the powerful to shut the poor and disadvantaged out of the economy. Not only does this benefit their wealthy donors, but it makes the poor people dependent on the government. The Democrats then lobby for social aid to those same people, and gain their support. In the end, it winds up being a wealth transfer from taxpayers to union workers, with reparations paid to the minorities hurt by it. But there’s one constant in all that - the government becomes the power broker, and formerly free people become dependents on government policy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rand-pauls-interview-on-rachel-maddow-a-real-libertarian-meets-the-real-world/540157.md?page=7)