Jump to content

Rand Paul is not a racist, but is he blinded to the impact his ideology would have?


iNow

Recommended Posts

That's exactly what I said in post #22.

Ah. Good call. Sorry about that, man.

 

 

The ventilation system idea you guys keeps tossing around is sound in concept, but I think you may be forgetting the installation cost that you are essentially mandating business owners to absorb. Some businesses have incredibly low margins and barely make enough to pay the lease... Let alone get a bunch of work done and systems installed merely so smokers don't have to be asked to go outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Good call. Sorry about that, man.

 

 

The ventilation system idea you guys keeps tossing around is sound in concept, but I think you may be forgetting the installation cost that you are essentially mandating business owners to absorb. Some businesses have incredibly low margins and barely make enough to pay the lease... Let alone get a bunch of work done and systems installed merely so smokers don't have to be asked to go outside.

 

That's true, but I don't see much in the way of other options. You can't just let people poison the air because you put up a sign that says so. Somehow, it must be isolated, such that workers and customers are entering a "dangerous" environment by their own will.

 

I don't know, somehow I still feel like I'm contradicting myself. But it's hard to concede to poison release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One, you clearly don't understand the Civil Rights legislation you're arguing about as you have restated you believe we can just call something a "private club" and suddenly we can do what we want. That's not true. I provided the criteria, and you just honed in on "public" and thought you found gold.

 

Sorry ParanoiA, you get one of these:

 

picard_facepalm.jpg

 

From the Civil Rights Act:

 

The provisions of this title shall
not apply to a private club
or other establishment not in fact open to the public

 

So I guess it's you who "clearly (doesn't) understand the Civil Rights Act", sorry.

 

the Civil Rights legislation is actually written, certain types of businesses are considered public by the kind of business they conduct.

 

Yes, by definition, businesses which serve the general public are public!

 

I'm curious, did you deliberately omit the verbage about private clubs from the section you copy pasted (it was right down there a few lines later after it finished defining what public establishments mean), or did you just not notice it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But other organizations that excluded people by race were condemned by society, such as whites-only golf clubs.

 

Right, gender is a different issue than race. Separate bathrooms for men and woman make sense in our society whereas, separate bathrooms by race do not. We realize that boys and girls are fundamentally different in certain ways and so it makes sense to have segregated groups in certain cases. Since race doesn't have any differences in regards to these activities, no need to segregate.

 

But I'm not sure society really cares about fairness. I think what it mainly cares about is making sure that the squeaky wheel has been adequately greased.

 

Yes, politics enters everything, but that shouldn't stop the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess it's you who "clearly (doesn't) understand the Civil Rights Act", sorry.

 

Wow. You're way, way wrong. Please read the civil rights act of 1964.

 

I cannot believe you're still pretending as if by calling your business a "private club" - without respect to the business model - excuses you from this Civil Rights act.

 

Let's re-read section (b) together, shall we?

 

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

 

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

 

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

 

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

 

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

 

You cannot open a restaurant and call it a private club and then discriminate.

 

Come on, one doesn't even really have to go to the trouble that I did to prove this out to you - simple logic reveals the utter futility and comedic value of assuming a person can just call his hardware store or motel a "private club" and suddenly get to discriminate. Your business model dictates whether it's public or private - not your vocabulary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. You're way, way wrong. Please read the civil rights act of 1964.

 

No, you're way wrong, and you're still completely ignoring the section on private clubs. I'm just going to jump straight to the ACLU on this and let them explain it to you:

 

http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/whenisaprivateclubnotapriv.htm

 

In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify. Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation), the club advertises for members, it is directly controlled by its members and operated solely for their benefit, and the club is operated for profit.

 

So there you go... if you create a private club, and have membership criteria which makes it truly exclusive (i.e. not everyone from the public can get a membership, not everyone who's not a black person can get membership, etc.) then yes, you can open a private club, and you will be exempt from the Civil Rights Act. Some very easy ways to run a club in this manner: have all members of the club vote on all new members. Then the membership requirement is that the existing club members approve of the new member. The members of the club are free to use whatever criteria they want in their vote.

 

And yes, it can be a for-profit private dining club, i.e. a "restaurant"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! You just changed the business model! It's right there in the very text you pasted. :doh:

 

Please stop moving the goal posts. I have consistently denied your claim that vocabulary alone excuses one from this civil rights legislation. I have consistently stated that it is entirely dependent on your business model, as defined by the legislation. And the ACLU agrees, emphatically. Thanks for the link.

 

In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify

 

As I've stated over and over again, you cannot open a restaurant and just call it a "private club" and start discriminating. You must change your business model so it really operates like a club. A club doesn't operate like a "public" establishment. Clubs depend on a membership arrangement that must be qualified - they can't dream up any ole method to establish members.

 

In addition, in an earlier post you tried to make believe I could do this specifically to get around these laws. And again, your very own source contradicts this in the part you pasted in:

 

Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation),

 

You must operate that restaurant differently than "public" restaurants. Merely assigning different vocabulary doesn't do it.

 

And, we're back to denying the right to use one's own property as they wish.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've stated over and over again, you cannot open a restaurant and just call it a "private club" and start discriminating.

 

Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, but you have seemed to previously been arguing that private clubs aren't exempt from the Civil Rights Act, when, in fact, they are.

 

You must change your business model so it really operates like a club.

 

Have I denied that anywhere? I've specifically called it out as a private, members-only club. If I was unclear before, I hope the ACLU's interpretation clears things up.

 

A club doesn't operate like a "public" establishment.

 

Which has been one of the points I've consistently been trying to make all along and you've been largely ignoring.

 

In addition, in an earlier post you tried to make believe I could do this specifically to get around these laws. And again, your very own source contradicts this in the part you pasted in

 

Yes, you can't start the "we hate black people" club and have the only criterion for membership be "not black". However that doesn't mean you can't start a members only private club and invite whomever you wish into it.

 

You must operate that restaurant differently than "public" restaurants. Merely assigning different vocabulary doesn't do it.

 

I have been consistently saying that over and over and I guess you've been ignoring me. Instead you keep pasting verbage that applies specifically to restaurants intended to service the general public.

 

And, we're back to denying the right to use one's own property as they wish.

 

It's a compromise between the freedoms of the customers and the freedoms of the business owners.

 

I guess in ParanoiA world, there's no consumer rights. The rights of business owners trump all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must operate that restaurant differently than "public" restaurants. Merely assigning different vocabulary doesn't do it.

 

And, we're back to denying the right to use one's own property as they wish.

 

Just to perhaps clarify this, a public place of business is considered to be taking advantage of all the public infrastructure associated with public places of business. You can't remove health warnings from products you sell from your "private" property because you are unfairly taking advantage of a business market that has established certain standards of labeling to denote risk.

 

As a business owner you have all sorts of advantages you would not get without massive public infrastructure - as such you are required to participate with that structure. If you are not interested in serving the public, you can have a private membership organization as bascule mentioned.

 

Secondarily, private businesses (that serve the public, not private clubs) provide a huge range of services that people depend on. If we weren't so heavily free market based, we may be able to get away with more freedoms for private businesses. However, since almost all essential services are acquired through private businesses there has to be some level of assurance that people have access to them.

 

I think the private club/public business is a good distinction and the line is drawn in a pretty good place. It's like you can invite your friends over to fish on your private property all you want, but if you want to go out into the harbor with the rest of the town's fishermen, you have to play by some common rules.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
But other organizations that excluded people by race were condemned by society, such as whites-only golf clubs.

The reasons were blatantly racist or at least racially-phobic. Not letting women participate in some group or sport has a basis in gender centric activities and with regards to sports athletic ability. Even if the reason happened to be sexist, it wouldn't be blatantly sexist unless it was like, a chess club and the room for doubt lessens the likelihood for condemnation.

 

 

 

But I'm not sure society really cares about fairness. I think what it mainly cares about is making sure that the squeaky wheel has been adequately greased. We haven't eliminated institutional racism in society, we've simply eliminated institutional racism implemented by whites. Institutional racism implemented by minorities seems to be perfectly acceptable, e.g. black scholarships and organizations.

 

Why is that?

I think we do care about fairness in general, but we also have a sense of never having enough time to fix everything that's broken, and deal with the squeaky wheels first.

 

With regards to "institutional racism" I don't think that's quite a fair label. The goal was designed to help people with a key set of disadvantages, no more racist than a group that helps new immigrants (in an area where almost all new immigrants are one ethnicity) learn English and aid them in other ways.

The necessity, benefit, and intellectual honesty of these organizations could surely be a different debate, but I don't think it can be characterized as "racist" in the same sense that institutionalized segregation was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, politics enters everything, but that shouldn't stop the effort.

 

I agree.

 

 

The reasons were blatantly racist or at least racially-phobic.

 

Is it? Reading people's minds is kinda risky -- perhaps you're making up the justification after the fact.

 

 

With regards to "institutional racism" I don't think that's quite a fair label. The goal was designed to help people with a key set of disadvantages, no more racist than a group that helps new immigrants (in an area where almost all new immigrants are one ethnicity) learn English and aid them in other ways.

The necessity, benefit, and intellectual honesty of these organizations could surely be a different debate, but I don't think it can be characterized as "racist" in the same sense that institutionalized segregation was.

 

Sure, because if you call it racist then it sounds like a bad thing. But it's actually the exact same act, you've simply thrown a different label on it and used a different justification for it.

 

Another example: Society considers it racist to say that only white people can receive a scholarship, but not racist to say that only black people can receive it.

 

The justification, as you say, is a kind of societal guilt -- a feeling of having repressed an entire race and having a need to make it up to them. Well that's fine -- society has determined that this is what the majority wants to do, and this is a democracy, so that's the way it is. We're going to tip the scales unfairly and unequally in favor of minorities out of a sense of guilt and duty. That's what we're going to do.

 

But that's not what we call it. What we call it is "equality". Which it clearly isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? Reading people's minds is kinda risky -- perhaps you're making up the justification after the fact.

A better way to phrase it would be that it appears to be blatantly racist. To say they don't care about your wealth, your credentials, your age, your ability but your skin tone is reason enough to bar you from the sport does tend to read as rather "blatantly racist" to most people, and we are talking about why "most people" condemned it as racist.

 

 

Sure, because if you call it racist then it sounds like a bad thing. But it's actually the exact same act, you've simply thrown a different label on it and used a different justification for it.

 

Another example: Society considers it racist to say that only white people can receive a scholarship, but not racist to say that only black people can receive it.

 

The justification, as you say, is a kind of societal guilt -- a feeling of having repressed an entire race and having a need to make it up to them. Well that's fine -- society has determined that this is what the majority wants to do, and this is a democracy, so that's the way it is. We're going to tip the scales unfairly and unequally in favor of minorities out of a sense of guilt and duty. That's what we're going to do.

 

But that's not what we call it. What we call it is "equality". Which it clearly isn't.

 

I have to disagree entirely with that. First, when you talk about "societal guilt" and the "feeling" of having repressed an entire race you make it sound like it has more to do with appeasing ourselves over some esoteric past wrong-doing.

I always thought these programs were in place to deal with the current issues and hardships existing today as a result that repression.

 

If you looked at a charity that specialized in helping women who have been raped, would they be sexist for not also helping men? There's a degree of specialization there and other groups do help men in those situations (and I'm sure they could refer) - but the amount that goes out towards helping women is a lot larger because a lot more women are raped every year than men.

 

It's not sexist, it's addressing a reality. The reality is the enslavement and subsequent segregation of an entire race has lead to a number of challenges in general that black people tend to face. As such, there are most scholarships and such to try to tackle those issues.

 

There are a lot of white people from incredibly poor and disadvantaged backgrounds that also face challenges - but those challenges weren't created by singling them out for their race, it's because they are poor, and we have programs for poor people too.

 

I really don't think it's far to call those programs racist on those grounds, not because of I don't want it to "sound like a bad thing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, but you have seemed to previously been arguing that private clubs aren't exempt from the Civil Rights Act, when, in fact, they are.

 

No, you're just misreading entirely. I've consistently made the point that you can't label your own business as a "private club". Your business model must fit the guidelines of a private club, not merely be "deemed" by you as private.

 

Hey, if all you propose is that I call my business a "private club" and suddenly I can enjoy my property as I wish, then great. My next question would be....what exactly is the point in this vocabulary exercise? What do you think you're accomplishing with it?

 

I cannot just open any business I like and call it a private club. I'm forced to use my property a certain way' date=' just to satisfy the populist moral code.[/quote']

 

Two, the way the Civil Rights legislation is actually written, certain types of businesses are considered public by the kind of business they conduct. This is largely because of the source of authority for these laws, which rests on interstate commerce. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States.

 

While the challenge was based on the Commerce Clause (and 5th and 13th amendments), the decision supports the method of how public is defined. Heart of Atlanta Motel would hardly fight in court if they merely needed to call their motel a "private club".

 

I cannot believe you're still pretending as if by calling your business a "private club" - without respect to the business model - excuses you from this Civil Rights act.

 

You cannot open a restaurant and call it a private club and then discriminate.

 

Come on, one doesn't even really have to go to the trouble that I did to prove this out to you - simple logic reveals the utter futility and comedic value of assuming a person can just call his hardware store or motel a "private club" and suddenly get to discriminate. Your business model dictates whether it's public or private - not your vocabulary.

 

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I officially give up.

 

It's a compromise between the freedoms of the customers and the freedoms of the business owners.

 

I guess in ParanoiA world' date=' there's no consumer rights. The rights of business owners trump all.[/quote']

 

No, in ParanoiA world, the rights of the individual trumps all. Whether that individual is trading in his own building, or someone else's building. In ParanoiA world, imaginary labels given to individuals that are engaged in trade on property they own doesn't miraculously transform them into a less deserving recipient of liberty.

 

Let me ask you this. Why is it that, when I walk into a store to trade merchandise for currency, the owner of that property is the one who concedes his property rights to me? We're both engaged in trade. We're just standing on his slab while we do it.

 

Does this also mean if we swap CD's at your house, you have to let everyone in the neighborhood in your house whether you like it or not? When does this magical "business owner with less rights than before" occur?

 

I don't buy this mental game at all. It's an excuse to engineer those the mainstream finds despicable.

 

Business owners are just consumers who pass on what they consume.

 

What a succinct point. Nicely put.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
As a business owner you have all sorts of advantages you would not get without massive public infrastructure - as such you are required to participate with that structure. If you are not interested in serving the public, you can have a private membership organization as bascule mentioned.

 

I hardly see how you're not enjoying that same massive public infrastructure as a private club. A private club isn't a hidden club. It still receives a boon from any economic advantages from the public.

 

Secondarily, private businesses (that serve the public, not private clubs) provide a huge range of services that people depend on. If we weren't so heavily free market based, we may be able to get away with more freedoms for private businesses. However, since almost all essential services are acquired through private businesses there has to be some level of assurance that people have access to them.

 

Well that's the argument anyway. But it's problematic in its assumptions.

 

If I come from a small town with no grocery store, does that mean the government must come and build one for me? No? Then why must the government force a grocery store owner to serve all of the public based on the notion the food there is essential?

 

Denying an individual access to that grocery store, as cruel as that is, is no different than the grocery store not existing in the first place, for that person. If the "essential services" argument is to be consistent, then I'd think the lack of a grocery store should cause the government to act.

 

 

Also, who said you have a right to canned green beans and processed meat? You have a right to roam public land and hunt and gather there - and cultivate your own land as you wish. That's where the green beans and meat came from in the first place. A grocery store, being an "essential service", is stocked with modernized presentations and preparations of this food.

 

As long as no one is denying access to public lands, or depriving your rights to use your land to cultivate, then essential services are not being denied. Rather access to other's wealth, in creating and preparing pretty food, is being denied.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is the enslavement and subsequent segregation of an entire race has lead to a number of challenges in general that black people tend to face.

 

What challenges to black people face that white people do not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're just misreading entirely. I've consistently made the point that you can't label your own business as a "private club". Your business model must fit the guidelines of a private club, not merely be "deemed" by you as private.

 

And private dining clubs fit the model of a private club. I'm certainly not trying to extend that to all types of establishments, like say, motels. But restaurants were the main one under discussion, and that's certainly one that fits the private club model.

 

If you want to run a motel, then yeah, that's not really something that fits with the private club model.

 

No, in ParanoiA world, the rights of the individual trumps all.

 

Well unfortunately, individuals have to interact, at which point you have to compromise as to their rights. A common example is "my rights begin where your fist ends".

 

Let me ask you this. Why is it that, when I walk into a store to trade merchandise for currency, the owner of that property is the one who concedes his property rights to me?

 

Because property usage is regulated by the government. Why is it you can't open a business on property zoned residential? Is city planning too draconian?

 

You're clearly something of an absolutist. I've seen you recognize the need to compromise in the past. This is one such case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're clearly something of an absolutist. I've seen you recognize the need to compromise in the past. This is one such case.

 

Not really. Most of the time I'm just arguing the principle and challenging assumptions. How that translates to policy and practice is up to politicians. That's why I always say compromise is for politicians.

 

Because I actually have respect for your views, whether I think they're stupid or not. I don't deserve to have my way if others don't agree. So, yes my position may be absolutist, but my tolerance is not.

 

Also keep in mind that it's my belief that what's happening right now is exactly what Madison, Jefferson and Franklin all warned about. A federation is joint sovereignty between the state and central government and right now the scales are tilted dramatically to the central government. This is largely because we allow ourselves to make exceptions to principles based on altruism. Engineering standardized morality across the 50 states from the central, federal government is our legacy. It is the crack aspiring despots and tyrannts require.

 

That said, just like Rand, I have no desire to go revisit this legislation. It doesn't make the top 100 list of stuff that matters right now.

 

 

Racism, and treatment based in ignorance.

 

No, he said "What challenges to black people face that white people do not?". White people face racism, including institutionalized racism. All of which is based on ignorance and resentment for people that aren't and haven't been alive for a long damn time.

 

You may be thinking racism aimed at white people is powerless, which to an extent can be true. But if you think it doesn't exist, try taking a long walk through the ghetto with your girl and tell me how that goes. Here, in Kansas City, there are blocks that white people had better not be found on.

Edited by ParanoiA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be thinking racism aimed at white people is powerless, which to an extent can be true. But if you think it doesn't exist, try taking a long walk through the ghetto with your girl and tell me how that goes.

 

It's not a matter of existence. It's a matter of magnitude and impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of existence. It's a matter of magnitude and impact.

 

And that's why we always disagree. I think it's a matter of principle, to expect from others as they expect from us, and not to entertain desperate appeals to you-do-it-to-us-worse-than-we-do-it-to-you.

 

That's preciesly why we get nowhere. It's precisely why racism is still going on. Because people keep excepting themselves and other groups based on "impact" rather than "existence".

 

You won't change the hearts and minds of everyone until you expect the same from everyone. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting that succinctly; that's exactly what I was trying to say. It's not that I don't think black people face obstacles, it's that I don't think they're so much greater than those faced by others that they need special advantages.

 

But even so, if that's what society has decided is going to happen, fine, I'll go along. But I want to call it what it is, instead of pretending that it's something that it's not.

 

And I think that's exactly what Rand Paul was trying to say about the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- let's recognize what was done, and endeavor to limit that sort of thing to occur as little as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting that succinctly; that's exactly what I was trying to say. It's not that I don't think black people face obstacles, it's that I don't think they're so much greater than those faced by others that they need special advantages.

I'm not so sure of that... Certainly the special advantages that they're getting now don't seem to be as effective as we'd like them to be, but that's a justification of using a different set of advantages, not none at all.

 

This is why I'm not terribly opposed to a affirmative action. How can a black man produced from centuries of state and social racism be held to the same standards as a white man or other minorities? It's no accident that American ghettoes are filled with black and hispanics... and we complain that America is no longer a meritocracy?

 

What are the chances that, comparing a black man and a white man of similar appearing qualifications, that the black guy is actually better but has been held back due to racism?

 

Of course, this could just be my SWPL coming out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I'm not terribly opposed to a affirmative action. How can a black man produced from centuries of state and social racism be held to the same standards as a white man or other minorities? It's no accident that American ghettoes are filled with black and hispanics... and we complain that America is no longer a meritocracy?

 

I do get your point here, and I've struggled with this myself. The thing is, there's no way to compensate for history without repeating history. Does that make sense?

 

Affirmative action requires us to duplicate the very crime, which we have gone to so much trouble to condemn, that got us here. And against people that are A) not responsible for it and B) that have fully embraced diversity and tolerance, spitefully thumbing their nose at our racist past.

 

So, while I struggle with the obvious lack of fairness and the deep consequences of institutionalized, systemic retardation of the entire black race here in America, I equally struggle with a method to remedy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, while I struggle with the obvious lack of fairness and the deep consequences of institutionalized, systemic retardation of the entire black race here in America, I equally struggle with a method to remedy it.

 

So here you're arguing from the premise that there is, in fact, a method of finding remedy (just that you can't wrap your arms around what that might be), whereas above you argued that the only remedy is to do nothing... that nothing should be done because doing anything only exacerbates the problem.

 

I understand this is a difficult issue, but you need to acknowledge you're trying to place yourself simultaneously on both sides of the issue, and you're sort of crissing and crossing between the two. That is one of the problems I have with the current state of libertarianism, as these internal inconsistencies and contradictory assertions pop up everywhere, and all of the time when libertarianism is your guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here you're arguing from the premise that there is, in fact, a method of finding remedy (just that you can't wrap your arms around what that might be), whereas above you argued that the only remedy is to do nothing... that nothing should be done because doing anything only exacerbates the problem.

 

I'm not following you here at all. Above I argued that white people experience racism as well and that everyone is expected to not be a racist and no one gets an out just cuz "the other guy" is worse about it. Then, below I argued that the black race has been disadvantaged by the white majority since america's colonization and that has real consequences to the overall advancement of the black population here.

 

In both cases I propose no discrimination created by law, and no right to control other's property based on the repugnance of a person's right to discriminate.

 

There is no remedy I can think of that respects both. I'm not sure what is inconsistent about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.