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

[Skye]

An interesting question I heard elsewhere and want to share here:

 

I was listening to a defense of the Rand Paul's position which was mostly boilerplate, but it had an interesting aspect to the defense that I have never considered before.

 

The speaker first stated the old adage that you can only judge your dedication to freedom of speech when the speech in question is abhorrent to you. He then asked whether that same rule applies to freedom of assembly, and by connection to discrimination.

 

My first thought was a resounding "No", but his argument only became more compelling. He theorized that discrimination is simply an aspect of freedom of assembly, and while we all discriminate every single day, racial, sexual and religious discrimination would qualify as those practices of assembly which most of us find abhorrent, but that we must defend if we truly wish to defend freedom of assembly.

 

It is an interesting argument. One I am not entirely sold on, but I must admit it is the closest anyone has come to convincing me to rethink my position on the topic.

 

I think abhorrent speech is defended in general because it causes no material damage. If speech causes material damages then it's often the case you can sue for damages through defamation. Assembly has an obvious material component so it's not an analogous situation to me.

[jryan]

I think abhorrent speech is defended in general because it causes no material damage. If speech causes material damages then it's often the case you can sue for damages through defamation. Assembly has an obvious material component so it's not an analogous situation to me.

 

It doesn't have to have a material component, though. In the case of hiring practices it would be zero sum anyway as any challenge on a discrimination basis would invariably hurt some other potential or current employee materially.

 

But I do understand your point. We don't defend shouting fire in a movie theater for good reason.

[iNow]

We have tried a fairly libertarian period in this country and the results were not surprising. We can not help but hurt ourselves, and we find ways always within the confines of law, and without the confines.

I do enjoy those times when I find agreement with you, jryan. Nicely said.

[jryan]

Thank you.

 

.. don't open the Reaganomics thread.

[ParanoiA]

I apologize for the length, I'm not the most succint individual. I have a lot of passion, and it's difficult to stop my fingers from going and going and going.... Feel free to pay me back in kind, I promise to read every word.

 

Well' date=' again, it isn't as easy at that. A starving child in a prison camp in Sudan may want to be a U.S. Astronaut, but it almost certainly won't come to be. We are still working out the cooperative skills needed to feed ourselves much less expect some universal achievable dream.

 

As such Libertarianism is a lot like the book "The Secret"... for those who fortune smiles on it seems to work, ignore those left behind in the gutter. I do tend to care about the ones in the gutter as well and think there is a very real need to cooperate rather than insulate ourselves from such people.

 

We have tried a fairly libertarian period in this country and the results were not surprising. We can not help but hurt ourselves, and we find ways always within the confines of law, and without the confines. "Harm" itself is a word that is easy to say but even easier for a lawyer to define as it suits their client.[/quote']

 

You are operating under false assumptions. This largely libertarian society divided a country and fought one of the bloodiest civil wars ever over slavery. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union, but the entire affair was over slavery and the North's disdain for the institution. Libertarian society did this.

 

Civil rights laws only changed the behavior of a minority of americans. A significant size, but still a minority. This is because it takes a majority, or close to it, to get the representation in elected officials to pass such laws. Why didn't we have the civil rights act of 1965 passed in 1865? Society evolves and laws can reflect that evolution - society has to evolve to come to the point to elect people that would then pass laws that reflect that change.

 

You appear to be under the assumption that without laws, people would discriminate like it was 1950 again. People won't because people were already evolving away from that when the civil rights laws of 1965 were passed. The law just effects the behavior of the remaining minority - a minority that would naturally shrink over time, as it has. The civil rights acts did not change the hearts and minds - the bulk of hearts and minds were already changed and thus believed that laws were required to change the remainder.

 

 

Which brings me to institutionalized racism - Jim Crow Laws. On the books from 1876 to 1965 - government enabled prejudice froze this behavior into existence. With a libertarian society, response to societal evolution is instantaneous - laws are not. Anyone who wouldn't agree with such thinking, in a libertarian society, can immediately desegregate themselves and their children and treat others fairly. But laws force them to continue to segregate, and treat them as second class citizens. Only a free society can immediately respond - overnight if they wanted. Laws take lots of time, requires a build up of support and then elected officials are driven by perception and the need to be re-elected and thus you get an extremely lagging response - long after society is ready to change direction.

 

 

The fact of the matter is, people use laws to settle their conscience. Libertarian government is no worse than our non-libertarian government - both require society to evolve in order to change behavior. The only difference is one of them uses laws when they reach critical mass, while the other lets the evolution that got them to critical mass in the first place, to finish the job.

 

 

 

Lastly, there are homeless people running all over downtown. They get fed by the churches here in Kansas City. Your money is not getting to them is it? They are left in the gutter and guess who's helping them: people who are just as free not to help them.

 

This is another example of laws settling our conscience. We think we've addressed the problem since we pass laws to create safety nets, and then we all go to work and pretend like we don't see starving citizens running around. I would contend that safety net laws actually hurt more than no laws at all. It causes people to deflect their attention under the false presumption that government is "taking care of it".

 

So, we're not taking care of people in the gutter - not by government anyway. And we've talked about the poor here having a high standard of living. I have spent most of my life poor. I know exactly what it's like supporting two kids and a wife, living in an all-bills-paid slum, one car (a 78 oldsmobile tank) making 7 dollars an hour. There's nothing fun about it. But we weren't starving either. We had a TV, a camcorder, microwave, musical instruments, furniture, solid living quarters - we were just fine. We just wanted more. And that's cool, but we weren't "in the gutter". And that's the standard of living most of the poor enjoy.

 

No, libertarian federal governing is exactly the way to go. We restore the necessary freedom and liberty and we gaurantee no institutionalized prejudice, and allow soceity to evolve, unfettered by antiquated laws. Let people be free to use their private property as they wish. They will impress you. History has proven it.

 

Keep in mind, it's 2010. No business is going to survive being the least bit racist. In the information age, it can't go unnoticed, and racism is so unacceptable they'll never survive the backlash. And don't forget, we use the "club" excuse to allow discrimination in businesses today, still - it just has to be labeled a "club". Again, more bullshit smoke and mirrors. The laws supposedly designed to end this, are a joke. Free thinking society is responsible for our change - not laws.

 

And I'm stopping here, since I haven't even talked about the moral and ethical violations of taking property and giving it to others. This is too long as it is...

 

I can't seem to unravel this statement. It seems like it is making a point, but the ideas don't seem to mesh. Rather than grasp at the intent, could you rephrase that? Not a knock on you, more of a knock on me.

 

It's a statement about libertarian federalism. I'm almost offended, anymore, that we are required to fight about how we each want to live, forcing one or the other to accept a discomforting quality of life. I'd rather deal with the problems created by each of us moving our political objections to the state level. Allowing more variety among the states gives each of us the opportunity to live under the kind of government we prefer, rather than to be forced to reconcile our preferences into one standard.

 

I would really like you to like libertarianism. But more importantly, I would really like you to be able to live under the kind of rules that make you happiest. Some people like blue, some like red. Why must we insist they accept purple as a compromise?

 

Yes, I realize there are new problems generated by the 50 laboratories approach - but they are a better set of problems to contend with than out of control federalism that is ruining the quality of life for most and is responsible for an empire that has pissed off half the world.

 

Now is the time for libertarianism more than before. We have evolved enough morally to enjoy a much better, and prouder result. Your countrymen will make you proud.

 

I don't disagree, but I see the libertarian knife cutting far to deep as it takes a wickedly cold and actuarial approach to individual success -- in that it cares only for the success and little for the individual.

 

No, the libertarian knife is for freeing the individual from the majority's whims. Libertariansim is about the individual - not really about success at all. You and I can define success differently. Maybe I see success as a musician working at Taco Bell, and I'm content with that. Maybe you need to be a millionaire to be successful - libertarianism is for both of us.

 

Don't forget, libertarianism is a statement about law and governing. Libertarianism isn't a home for greedy rich people, it's a home for freedom loving individuals that abhore investing in government to change society.

 

Government is a response to man's limitations in ethical cooperation. Just as fighting crime carries the ideal of a zero-crime rate, the libertarian philosophy carries the ideal of zero-government. You can't get zero government by growing the relationship between government and man.

 

What are we saying if we invest in and grow a necessary evil?

Edited May 26, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Government is a response to man's limitations in ethical cooperation.

Or, perhaps centralized government is simply the logical outgrowth of the strong evolutionary success experienced by tight well-coordinated and symbiotic troops of organisms. Those who worked together and accepted common rules and behavioral guidelines tended to be much more successful than those who did not. Those who pooled their resources tended to out-survive those who did not. Those who protected others tended to have that protection returned. Government rests on these exact same principles, merely writ large due to our massive population... what is ultimately viewable as us now existing as part of a ginormous troop.

[ParanoiA]

Or, perhaps centralized government is simply the logical outgrowth of the strong evolutionary success experienced by tight well-coordinated and symbiotic troops of organisms. Those who worked together and accepted common rules and behavioral guidelines tended to be much more successful than those who did not. Those who pooled their resources tended to out-survive those who did not. Those who protected others tended to have that protection returned. Government rests on these exact same principles, merely writ large due to our massive population... our ginormous troop.

 

Think about what you just wrote. You're entirely right about "evolutionary success experienced by tight well-coordinated and symbiotic troops of organisms" - government is merely a tool to that end. That tool is only needed as long as we can't achieve that end without it.

 

Note that we change tools too, as we evolve. Tools are only needed because of limitations of the human form. I wouldn't need a wrench if I could tighten a bolt by hand.

 

They are responses to limitations. We already have begun the process of thinking around our evolutionary impulses - such as in-group/ out-group dynamics and so forth. In time, it only stands to reason we won't need a centralized control system to force cooperation.

 

Also, consider the generalist and the specialist. The specialists go extinct at far greater a rate than generalists. The cost is efficiency. Centralization of behaviors is specialization. It makes more sense to cultivate diversity of thought and behavior in order to maximize our ability to adapt to rapid changes in environment. Libertarianism serves the generalist society.

[jackson33]

Here's another one: What if the smokers had used government to force business owners to allow smoking? What if you had to deal with smokers in every restaurant, by law? [/Quote]

 

P; On topic, are you suggesting Government by law has imposed integration on patrons of any business?

 

As for smokers; It's still a State Issue, falls under the business prerogative IMO (where law allows) and in fact smoking is legal in many business environments, including restaurants today. What States have done in some cases, is allowing the business to make this decision which ended up driving out 'No Smoking Establishments', then correcting this to making it illegal for any to allow smoking. I'm not aware of any Smokers lobby (NRA type), short of Tobacco Companies, so it's kind of hard to see smokers demanding anything. Since I'm a 60 year veteran of Smoking and oh my the really bad one "cigarettes", I've lived through this entire "social justice" event.

 

Most would think that to be insanely ridiculous, but it's the same presumption of forcing others to use their own property by some other group's notion of fairness. The non-smokers are just lucky that the safety issue of smoking trumps any liberty issue of tolerance.[/Quote]

 

Most all people have more than one idiosyncrasies; Mine would be the appearance of the folks working in certain business environments. A Chef with long hair, facial hair has always bothered me, or a 300 pound 5-2 Waitress or even a bank teller concerns me. A sloppy eater, at another table or some one feeding themselves with their hands then doesn't bother me very much.

 

What I currently have where I chose to retire is my choice, where to do business or smoke and what I'd think most people would appreciate, not Government Controlled or some activist groups attitude to what's proper...

[ParanoiA]

P; On topic, are you suggesting Government by law has imposed integration on patrons of any business?

 

Well sure, the civil rights act of 1965 does just that. Although, my point was along the lines of forcing someone to use their property in a way that supporters of such ideas might find unnattractive.

 

It always seems to "make sense" to ban smoking on someone else's property, or force integration in a private business - the essential mainstream position. But, if suddenly smokers lobbied and used the same presumptions of power to control other's property, or per a SCOTUS ruling and they were successful, the mainstream wouldn't like it too much. Imagine the pegoratives aimed at non-smokers for bitching about having to be tolerant of smokers - to be forced to integrate in their favorite restaurant.

 

Suddenly the notion of private property would receive a renewed appreciation. In my opinion, of course.

 

In fact, the single best way to achieve such renewed appreciation is to demand our strip clubs to comply to the EOE standard - include men and ugly people, anyone who applies and can dance in the buff. Suddenly, men everywhere would become Rand and Ron Paul supporters...

[bascule]

Well sure, the civil rights act of 1965 does just that. Although, my point was along the lines of forcing someone to use their property in a way that supporters of such ideas might find unnattractive.

 

Nobody's "forcing" them to use that property that way. They want to run a public business, so they get a license from the government to do so, and accept the provisions of getting that license.

 

If they don't want to run a public business, they're free to run a private club on their property and do whatever the hell they want. Don't want black people in your private club? Nobody's forcing you to give membership to anyone. You, the owner of the club, get to decide who's allowed membership.

 

This is exactly the private/public dichotomy Ron Paul purports to speak about, and a great compromise between the freedoms of patrons of public establishments and the rights of business owners. If you run a public business the freedoms of the public take precedence, and if you run a private business the freedoms of the business owner take precedence.

 

For some reason though, even people like Rand Paul have it in their head that the rights of the business owner should always trump the rights of the customer, even though he pays lip service to the public/private dichotomy.

[ParanoiA]

This is exactly the private/public dichotomy Ron Paul purports to speak about, and a great compromise between the freedoms of patrons of public establishments and the rights of business owners. If you run a public business the freedoms of the public take precedence, and if you run a private business the freedoms of the business owner take precedence.

 

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?

 

Don't bother. Because that's not how it works.

 

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

 

(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.

 

I cannot just open any business I like and call it a private club. I'm forced to use my property a certain way, just to satisfy the populist moral code. I share this moral code and it won't affect me personally, but that's merely incidental and a liberty offense.

 

Second of all, I'm not crazy about licensing and how it's abused. That's exactly the kind of bureaucratic crap big business loves to see - keep the little competitors to a minimum using government.

 

 

All that said, this is a matter of principle that doesn't even make the list of priorities. I don't know a single libertarian, even Rand, that gives a crap about repealing any piece of the civil rights acts. The offense is minimal. There are a ton of other laws that go way further in abridging our liberties than that. And just as much so, the notion that we'd embrace racism all over again and self segregate is to have been raised in a closet for the past 40 years.

[bascule]

Don't bother. Because that's not how it works.

 

http://www.citizensource.com/History...A1964/CRA2.htm

 

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public...

 

I think that stands for itself...

[ParanoiA]

I think that stands for itself...

 

Right, it's an invalid assumption. Once you make the leap, it's easy to fall the rest of the way down.

[bascule]

Right, it's an invalid assumption. Once you make the leap, it's easy to fall the rest of the way down.

 

What? It's explicitly called out in the very law you supposedly linked to refute me. Private organizations are not subject to those provisions.

[ecoli]

What? It's explicitly called out in the very law you supposedly linked to refute me. Private organizations are not subject to those provisions.

 

I'd appreciate a brief semantics interlude. The way you've wrote it, it sounds to me that private companies (non-publicly traded) would be excluded from the Civil rights Act. Surely this can't be true.

[bascule]

I'd appreciate a brief semantics interlude. The way you've wrote it, it sounds to me that private companies (non-publicly traded) would be excluded from the Civil rights Act. Surely this can't be true.

 

And we're back to the semantics of "public" versus "private" which Rand Paul himself was colluding all over the place, and contradicting himself.

 

In this context public does not mean:

- The government

- A publically traded corporation

 

It means:

- An establishment which serves the general public. Several examples were quoted by ParanoiA in the blurb he pasted from the Civil Rights Act.

 

As opposed to:

- A private, members-only club

 

The government can't force a private, members-only club to grant membership to anyone, and such clubs can set whatever membership criteria they want. They are free to deny entry to whoever they desire.

 

If you want to start a restaurant/business and don't like the Civil Rights Act, simply make your business a private club, and then you are free to control exactly who your customers are and still have complete control over your property. That's all it takes.

[Pangloss]

Open Question:

 

Why was the Boy Scouts organization wrong to discriminate against minority males, but not wrong to discriminate against all women?

[bascule]

Why was the Boy Scouts organization wrong to discriminate against minority males, but not wrong to discriminate against all women?

 

I was not aware there was ever an incident involving Boy Scouts and minority discrimination (except perhaps before the Civil Rights movement)

 

That said, Boy Scouts of America continues to actively discriminate against gays. And of course BSA is a heavily religious organization and there have been incidents of them discriminating against agnostics/atheists.

 

An entire Wikipedia article on the subject of Boy Scouts of America controversies lists nothing in regard to race:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

[Pangloss]

I could have phrased that better -- forget the history, I'm just wondering why (or if) it would be okay for the BSA to discriminate against women, but not against African Americans. In your opinions.

 

I bring it up because it seems to fall within the purview of a discussion about the amount of flexibility society is to allow private organizations in determining their membership requirements.

[iNow]

It always seems to "make sense" to ban smoking on someone else's property, or force integration in a private business - the essential mainstream position. But, if suddenly smokers lobbied and used the same presumptions of power to control other's property, or per a SCOTUS ruling and they were successful, the mainstream wouldn't like it too much. Imagine the pegoratives aimed at non-smokers for bitching about having to be tolerant of smokers - to be forced to integrate in their favorite restaurant.

I'm just gonna suggest here that you've chosen a very poor analogy. There is mountains of scientific evidence that others smoking around us causes us demonstrable harm and measurable decreases in lifespan. Your freedom to smoke is overturned by your lack of freedom to cause me harm by your smoking.

 

In essence, the law is against gun rights if your bullets keep grazing me, because your freedom to have and use a gun is of less a priority than my freedom not to be harmed by it.

[john5746]

I could have phrased that better -- forget the history, I'm just wondering why (or if) it would be okay for the BSA to discriminate against women, but not against African Americans. In your opinions.

 

Just speaking for myself, I think it makes sense to segregate in some cases. Having a boys or girls club for certain activities makes sense and in the case of Boy Scouts there is usually an alternative Girl Scouts. There is nothing in their charter that would justify exclusion by race. A kid in a wheel chair can't play football, that doesn't mean we can now exclude all white kids from the team.

[bascule]

I'm just gonna suggest here that you've chosen a very poor analogy. There is mountains of scientific evidence that others smoking around us causes us demonstrable harm and measurable decreases in lifespan. Your freedom to smoke is overturned by your lack of freedom to cause me harm by your smoking.

 

In essence, the law is against gun rights if your bullets keep grazing me, because your freedom to have and use a gun is of less a priority than my freedom not to be harmed by it.

 

And as a libertarian, I'm sad that isolated ventilation systems and or isolated outdoor smoking areas weren't an equitable compromise.

 

But perhaps I'm in a state where city law originally imposed the isolated ventilation system policy, which was fine, then state law took that away and implemented a mandatory no indoor smoking period, regardless of how the ventilation system was configured.

[Double K]

The smoking laws (aside from being draconian - I'm not a smoker for the record, but I think they are a little draconian) I think were really introduced to try and take some pressure off the health care system which is already struglling. We now (at least in Australia) have an aging population which means the health care system is going to struggle even more.

 

So perhaps when you take into consideration flow on effects of some of these laws (gun law for example) you can see there's no real impact on other governmental systems and so it's been allowed to continue as is. The same for the racial discrimination acts, there's no system that relies on it changing to keep pace with modern society, and so it's never evolved past a certain point.

[Pangloss]

Just speaking for myself, I think it makes sense to segregate in some cases. Having a boys or girls club for certain activities makes sense and in the case of Boy Scouts there is usually an alternative Girl Scouts. There is nothing in their charter that would justify exclusion by race. A kid in a wheel chair can't play football, that doesn't mean we can now exclude all white kids from the team.

 

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

 

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?

[ParanoiA]

I'm just gonna suggest here that you've chosen a very poor analogy. There is mountains of scientific evidence that others smoking around us causes us demonstrable harm and measurable decreases in lifespan. Your freedom to smoke is overturned by your lack of freedom to cause me harm by your smoking.

 

In essence, the law is against gun rights if your bullets keep grazing me, because your freedom to have and use a gun is of less a priority than my freedom not to be harmed by it.

 

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

 

The non-smokers are just lucky that the safety issue of smoking trumps any liberty issue of tolerance.

 

It wasn't meant to be so much a great analogy as much as it was supposed to be a reminder that your enthusiasm for dictating the use of other's property is contingent upon your agreement with those specific policies. Once another group forces something intolerant to your beliefs, I suspect a renewed interest in personal property rights.

 

And as a libertarian, I'm sad that isolated ventilation systems and or isolated outdoor smoking areas weren't an equitable compromise.

 

Same here. Someone here at SFN made a great point one time comparing smoke to mustard gas. It really made me think. An isolated ventilation system or outdoor smoking area really is the only solution in my mind. I don't think you can just release toxins in the air and expect everyone to accept the damage - I don't care how minute that damage is estimated to be.

 

What? It's explicitly called out in the very law you supposedly linked to refute me. Private organizations are not subject to those provisions.

 

If you want to start a restaurant/business and don't like the Civil Rights Act, simply make your business a private club, and then you are free to control exactly who your customers are and still have complete control over your property. That's all it takes.

 

There are two issues here. 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.

 

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.

 

The Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question.

 

Title II is the public accommodation provision.

 

Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major U.S. Highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. As such, it therefore upheld the permanent injunction issued by the District Court, and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

 

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".

 

 

And this is what I mean by smoke and mirrors and make believe bullshit. I'm not trying disparage any particular person's position with that statement, I'm attacking these rationalizations about people suddenly becoming non-people once they trade stuff in a building. The mental gymnastics required to believe this is astonishing to me. And further, that others would actually argue a difference between a business being public and private by the owner merely embracing certain vocabulary - with identical business models. Who seriously believes that makes sense, even if it were true?

 

I don't see this exchange evolving into anything productive unless you're ready to discuss the assumptions that lead to business entities not being people anymore, that have a right to use their property as they wish. Just like your house.

Edited May 27, 2010 by ParanoiA