Not every law passed by Congress is done so in order to “maintain our democratic republic.” So, your question makes no sense. It is like asking how a bill to rename a post office or Federal courthouse will help the military defend our borders against aggression: both defending our country and maintaining our system of government are valid exercises of governmental power, but not everything that our government does is required to relate to those two powers. There are other compelling interests that our government may legitimately act upon, such as eliminating discrimination in order to promote the equal treatment of all Americans under the law.
Back to your loaded question, though: Is it your position that you would want the Federal government protect racist, sexist, and otherwise discriminatory businesses from laws such as Title II of the Civil Rights Act?
All based (ostensibly) on the principle of “states’ rights” or local autonomy. Which is an important idea in American history, but not a Libertarian idea.
Libertarians have always supported Paul’s position in the OP. His son supported it when he ran for the Senate in Kentucky.
Although I can’t get on board with it because it would make me icky to see a “No Blacks Allowed” sign on a restaurant, I understand the idea behind it. That private property rights are something the government shouldn’t mess with. So if I am a racist and only allow whites in my restaurant, then as the property owner, my say should be higher than the community because I am the one that bought the property, pay taxes on it, organize the business, etc. If you don’t like my racist policies, you can “punish” me by not doing business with me. If a number of people feel the same way, then I lose out to the restaurant across the street that is non-discriminatory.
However, most people feel that the community interests outweigh the private property right, and this legislation is appropriate. That runs counter to the Libertarian idea and always has. No breaking news here.
Not really. Rand Paul briefly hedged on the Civil Rights Act, but then everyone started yelling at him and he walked it back pretty unequivocally within 24 hours or so. Here’s the statement his then Senate campaign released:
I stand corrected. It seems like he has more political smarts than his dad, but I’ll bet a shiny nickel that they both believe the same thing and that Rand’s advisers told him that he could either continue on his constitutional discussion or become the next Senator from Kentucky. But not both. And Rand chose…wisely.
The crash was NOT, repeat NOT, caused by low-income borrowers taking out loans they couldn’t afford. There are news sources besides FOX, I suggest you broaden your horizon.
Are you aware that the biggest culprits in the mortgage mess were not banks and not under CRA? Are you aware that studies of their loan portfolios indicate that minority applicants with similar scores to non-minority applicants got steered to subprime loans much more often, even though they qualified for standard loans.
You might also point us to any law that requires lenders to write loans without documentation, as was done very often.
Whether or not it was true, there was a perception, and some evidence that neighborhoods with similar income levels got treated very differently by banks depending on their racial makeup. That was the reason for CRA. Home ownership has very real benefits, as Bush II also said. The only thing that forced the lenders to write crap loans was that they made more money from them, and dumped the risk on the market, with help from the rating agencies.
Why don’t you make a coherent argument? This is Great Debates, not Ask Loaded Questions and Make Other Posters Try to Satisfy Some Unclear Concern of Yours.
I did, you did not understand it, my quote refers to what a public place is, you can have a club an make it exclusive and discriminate to your heart’s content, but the nanosecond you offer a service to the public you have to follow the rules. As the voting booths are in public places you are just reaching for an ignorance argument when you attempt to insinuate that it does not affect voting and other basic rights all people have.