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
I like the author below, do not think Paul is maybe a racist.
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.
A similar sentiment expressed by John Cole at Balloon Juice:
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.
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? 
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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,”
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.
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.
It seems unlikely that Paul’s position is being misrepresented. In a letter to the editor in 2002 he wrote:
and
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one has said anything in this thread to which this is remotely a relevant or logical response to.