Fifty years ago today, a Greyhound bus full of civil rights activists left Atlanta, intent on testing the limits of American freedom. Those limits closed in around them like a flytrap just south of Anniston, Alabama, as they pulled into the Greyhound and Trailways terminal. A mob, some still dressed in their Sunday best, enforced the limits with sharp objects, metal pipes, chains. The tires on the bus were slashed, the bus itself was firebombed, and those riders barely escaped being burned alive (and later, a lynching).
The first bus of Freedom Riders had left 10 days earlier, groups of passengers out to see if Boynton v. Virginia really meant anything. The Supreme Court decision outlawed racial segregation in public transportation, in particular at terminals like that one south of Anniston. That day, May 14, 1961, would offer America another reminder of just how free a land it really was.
Yesterday Texas Congressman Ron Paul, proud libertarian and newly announced (third-time) Republican presidential contender, was a guest on "Hardball with Chris Matthews" when the subject of freedom came up, in a different context. Much as his son, now U.S. Senator Rand Paul, was offered nearly a year ago in an interview on TRMS, Congressman Paul was given the chance to hypothesize about how he would have voted on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In much the same way his son did, Representative Paul defended saying "no":
I believe property rights should be protected. Your, your right to be on TV is protected by property rights, because somebody owns that station. I can't walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it.
Rand Paul later changed his mind and said he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. Yesterday, his father kept digging. He blamed government for slavery, for segregation in the military and Jim Crow. If only libertarians were in charge, the congressman argued. Given the chance, libertarians would repeal laws allowing discrimination by the government, even as they let businesses continue to post "Whites Only" signs.
What Congressman Paul said yesterday didn't make me think that he is a racist at all. To the contrary: Ron Paul may have the most faith in human nature of anyone in recorded history. He said in the "Hardball" interview that businesses would be just stupid to discriminate:
... you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that, and if they did, they'd be an idiot and they'd go out of business.
That may be true. But the Freedom Riders got on a bus after the discriminatory law they were fighting had been overturned by the Supreme Court. Would the Jim Crow laws Congressman Paul noted in the interview have retreated on their own, or did they need a push? Without the Civil Rights Act, could American society self-regulate away bigotry and discrimination, or are laws necessary, too? I'd argue the latter.
If the libertarians were in charge, how free would we be?
Leave a Comment:
See the mentality is if the gov't hadn't been involved w/ segregation then people wouldn't have segregated. The fact that private businesses segregated is the fault of gov't not private business. Private entities can do no wrong because I don't remember why public entities were created in the first place. I remember serfdom, but in my mind serfdom was serving a public master not a private one. Nobody remind me of the historic fact- that's just rude. Darn you RM you are a liberal and a progressive and I hate you!
This is over the top mickey.
Rand Paul and Ron Paul are toxic.
Discrimination in public places, discrimination in the workplace, and discrimination in schools is harmful to other people so it is something that cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in any form.
In fact, racism produces real economic harm to the United States because of factors like the following, which have the largest impact on children.
In fact, children learn to be poor performers because of discrimination, so discrimination is one of the factors that actually produces poverty where none should exist.
Nobody should be free to cause any kind of harm to a child.
We are all cousins. The Human Genome Project shows we all descended from one man that lived about 3,200 generations ago and one woman that lived a little over 8,000 generations ago.
Race is an imaginary concept like the Easter bunny and Santa. Race, as a concept, was invented by hebrew/christian institutions to explain people not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does not mention people like American Indians because writing was invented about 300 generation ago, and people began migrating to the rest of the world about 3,000 generations ago.
Segregation began with slavery as an institution started by English businessmen before the United States became a country. The English learned about slavery during Roman occupation of Britain.
The abolishment of slavery should have been addressed in the US constitution but it was not because slave states were a majority at the time. California statehood created an anti-slavery super majority in both houses, which was one of the triggers for the civil war.
Discrimination is wrong for the same reason slavery was wrong.
There is actually no such thing as race. Some of us have darker skin to block sunlight that would create excess vitamin D because our ancestors lived longer near the equator. Some of us have lighter skin because our ancestors lived near the arctic circle, and lighter skin lets our bodies produce more vitamin D.
There is such a thing as race. Race is a social construct. That does not make it imaginary, false, or unreal.
not only is it a social construct, by understanding of things, but also race is lineages - separation that happened and evolved in it's own, say, genetic ecosystem.
Technically speaking, yes. But we don't engage with each other's DNA. Race as personally experienced is a construct.
Mickey, are you conservative now?
mickey is being sarcastic.
@Romeo- It certainly makes for sarcasm fail when those who believe my absurd talking points are actual politicians.
How would someone know you're being sarcastic? Your talking points aren't absurd. They are realistic conservative positions. You're just repeating typical conservative points. Compare your posts to some of the things real dissenters in this thread have said.
Like I've said before, most people reading this board don't know you personally. So when someone votes up one of your posts, how do you know it's because they don't agree with what you've said, or do agree with what you've said?
My points aren't absurd? Then I don't think you actually read my post. I think you're just picking a fight because you're in the mood to argue. Why don't you go take a walk instead.
Ladies, ladies! We are all friends here!
Because Mickey often is (with good reason), and wasn't expressing an opinion we'd expect her to. But that's the problem, isn't it? Like GR says, you have to have a firm sense of Mickey to get when she's sarcastic. That's why I sometimes jump in with a disclaimer whenever she's really selling it, because it just seems so outrageous if you don't already more or less know where she's coming from, and we've all seen what can happen when someone doesn't.
You really should make it clear somehow to the uninitiated when you're being sarky, Mick. Please? Even saying "I'm being sarcastic" would help. Or, better, let rip and then knock down what you just wrote. Anything to make your point more clearly.
#sarcasm tag would help
Actually I was being more inquisitive than argumentative. I was curious as to how someone who doesn't have any sense of history of Mickey's posts--as in this is the first post they've ever read--is supposed to see sarcasm in a post that reads like a typical conservative opinion.
Trolls come on the board all the time and say crazier things. I'm not fighting...just pointing out a thing. People are getting confused.
I can't take a walk. I am actually stuck on the couch with a laptop recovering from surgery. ;) I can go read my news subscriptions though.
I hope you make a good recovery. Post op sucks. What gives? I've have a discectomy and a septoplasty. Back surgury is the worst.
@GR Oh, I don't know, I "votes up" Mickey's post above because I got the humor of it. But then, I also appreciate and respect the difference it provides. As to "inquisitive"...lmao - yeah, that's it, sure...oh, an just to clarify, I too am "not fighting...just pointing out a thing".
The main problem I see with the libertarian approach/philosophy/whatever...and this goes for Ayn Rand, too...is that they seem to deny human nature. It relies on all people seeing the rational market based benefits of equality and freedom and then acting on those rational beliefs. But in order for that philosophy to work, you have to ignore human nature and history completely.
"Self regulation" is a myth, because humans are not altruistic, generous, and rational. Individuals may be, but as a group we are selfish, power hungry, and corrupt. To think that we would have self-regulated our way out of our slavery, out of segregation or gender discrimination, is to put ultimate faith in the inherent "goodness" and rationality of men. A misplaced faith.
This is why every single economist will tell you that libertarianism and neo-liberalism are hypothetical (I.E. classroom) beliefs
history has proven time and again that it takes someone to point out and stop the madness of greed and the madness of hate.
John, excellent post. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "While the cat's away, the mice will play!"
Human nature being what it is, self-regulation is a myth. And the perpetrators of that myth are either naive or prompted by self interest only.
The right-wing freakout over the election of a black man to the Presidency is, I think, the best refutation to Ron Paul's assertion that Jim Crow is ancient history. If all civil rights and nondiscrimination laws were repealed today, you would see the return of Jim Crow tomorrow.
Both Pauls refuse to recognize the facts of history. Both have stated that any business who refused to accept of the custom of anyone regardless of race would go out of business in plain defiance of the historical fact that businesses did refuse and didn't go out of business for so doing. Anyone who can look at what plain did and didn't happen in the past and deny the reality of that isn't a rational human being.
meddlingmonk,
also any business that didn't conform to discrimination were forced out with bruit.
Yes, there is that. And non-whites who operated, or tried to operate, businesses to cater to non-whites faced pressure, too.
Basically, the "free market" is simply an economy where the maximum benefit accrues to the smallest number of people. What the Pauls advocate for is inherently discriminatory. And they're cool with that because, first, they just assume that they are naturally members of the privileged groups; and, second, I don't think they recognize the humanity of the people their ideology would subjugate and disenfranchise.
I believe in egalitarianism. . .not socialism, communism or fascism.
That means that every life matters not just zygotes and fetuses.
It does not mean that billionaires get welfare and that's okay . . . it does not mean that we shove needy people down a big hole because poverty is their fault . . .
It means that if we all actually live by our so called " religions " and actually followed the TRUTH of what Jesus, Buddha, Moses, and Mohammad, etc were here teaching . . .
Everyone would have a place in in the circles of life . . . where everyone has something to contribute and things they sell and share and there would be no class structure. People would get a hand up . . . not a hand out . . . weather they be billionaires or homeless people.
If it is not right for poor people to take welfare . . . it is not right for Billionaires to take welfare.
And the solution to the problem of human weakness is to enpower a small group of powerful and well connected "leaders". Talk about misplaced faith..
It's a common misconception. Here's why it's off-base: libertarianism advocates decentralised power. It includes the recognition that, human nature being what it is, it's unwise to concentrate power in a ruling elite. Paul is a minarchist, but this recognition, taken to its logical conclusion rules out the state altogether:
Here's Hoppe explaining why it's ironic that libertarians get charged with naivety and an unrealistic image of human nature:
Disclaimer: I believe Paul is overlooking that market forces can, and may well, help racist firms in certain situations (an overtly racist firm in a locality including many similar racists may well do better than the non-racist firm in that area) as well as harm them.
One needn't be a "statist" to charge libertarians with naivete. Reality tends to tear down any philosophy if it's advocates claim it's universality. Some elements of libertarianism are good, but when taken to their logical conclusion result in injustice. The same can be said for pure democracy, oligarchy, and any other system of government when applied to a large complex society with equal competing interest groups.
There's a lot of truth in that. Take classical Marxism. Marx was a brilliant historian and economist; but whenever he projected his understanding of the past and present into the future, he basically assumes that at some point human nature would just magically change for the better in a really spectacular way. Of course, he assumed that human nature was shaped by economics (which is a very simplistic way of expressing it, I admit), rather than the other way around, but still. And then people came along who tried to intentionally and forcibly direct the massively complex economic forces Marx described into the channels that they thought he said they should go down, with the result of other sorts of injustices.
Throwing my 2 cents in: this analysis from Friday's Democratic Underground traces the white supremacist movement from post-civil war to Tea Party - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1099384
The Rachel's little 4-square of conservative/liberal v. authoritarian/libertarian is useful in understanding some of the political declarations Americans make about race, racism and how to deal with it.
Scientifically, of course, there is no such thing. Human DNA is human DNA and we are all one species.
Emotionally, I think there is something different at work which has to do both with demographics and how one was raised. I was exactly 8 when the Freedom Rides began - just at the age when the self-centeredness of early childhood begins to discover the great "out there" and learn about current events. My teachers and parents were big on that: going into Space was HUGE that year. I learned to pay attention to news reports and to understand how important they were to adults...
When I saw adults reacting to news in horror and disgust instead of with jubilation and pride, it seemed to me time to ask questions. I remember the Freedom Rides and how they affected me. I remember my mother's response, too: she led the only integrated Girl Scout Troop in the state of Virginia after that. When you learn those things early, they stay with you. When you learn ugliness early, you join the Tea Party.
libertarianism advocates decentralised power. It includes the recognition that, human nature being what it is, it's unwise to concentrate power in a ruling elite. Paul is a minarchist, but this recognition, taken to its logical conclusion rules out the state altogether:
Power aggregates. Libertarians just prefer a de facto "state" ruled by the privileged as opposed to a declared one organized without their express benefit in mind.
good link, carolinalady. thank you.
i agree mechtrek. we're seeing massive decentralization on a state level. they want to dump everything into the private market. from schools to medicare to social security.
True dat.
I didn't know who Hoppe was, so I looked him up. The wiki entry is well sourced, so it's a good place to start, if your interested. Though, as always, I wouldn't recommend citing it as a source.
link to wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hermann_Hoppe
If I were a libertarian, I wouldn't want Hoppe on my team. One of Hoppe's critics, Walter Block, quotes Hoppe's views on homosexuality (among other things) on this website:
Hoppe's quote: "Naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
Not a guy I want to be implementing government in my country. So he doesn't care about race, but you can't be democrat, communist, socialist, gay, or any other thing that is contrary to the "libertarian order."
Yikes!
This is one guy, so it doesn't amount to a condemnation of libertarianism as a philosophy, but it sure shows that it can be taken to an utter extreme.
Hoppe's philosophy pinned down: I believe in freedom only to the extent that those who are free agree 100% w/ me. I am not a fascist.
As an aside, and somewhat off topic. All these "philosopher dudes" are fat old white men with extensive academic experience in western cultures (Europe, America, Australia). Given my recent trend in reading about race and white privilege, coupled with my general distrust of anyone that lived their entire lives in an academic bubble, let us say that I am...unpersuaded by the libertarian philosophy, re: justice.
I like your point, John. Not that you need my approval or anything, but I like how you contrasted privilege with justice.
Mickey and others: another link...if the shoe fits? http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
I am persuaded via the Pauls, the Kochs, WI, the TeaParty, the effort to diminish women in all ways...that fascism is on the rise in the US. Call it what you will, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Wow, Carolinalady. Can I borrow that fan? I'm feeling a little hot under the collar. Those Fascist little ducks...
That is SO going into my Favorites. Thank you Lady.
As a proud Oregon Duck, I do not like this particular line duck calling :-)
Profound apologies, Jason.
All y'all: if anyone needs a fanswat, you know who to call ;D
Libertarians WERE in charge for a really, really long time. States were free to have Whites Only lunch counters and drinking fountains. States were free to have all the segregation they wanted and the government (which was "small enough to drown in a bathtub"), could do nothing about it. They were free to have Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, lynchings and lots of other freedom lovin' fun stuff. People were free to get horribly sick from contaminated water, adulterated or spoiled food, Tuberculosis, smallpox and whooping cough and you were free to get no help whatsoever without cash on the barrelhead. People were free to get addicted to cocaine and morphine that were sold legally, they were free to be blinded, crippled or killed by bad whiskey and they were totally free to go to work in coal mines and iron smelting operations when they were five years old or so, which meant that they didn't have to spend a lot of time in some evil public school learning about stuff. They could get out into the workforce picking tomatoes, shoveling coal and boot blacking among other totally safe, high wage endeavors. If you made it into your teens, you could apprentice as a hat maker (I hope you like mercury vapors) or a totally free meat cutter, working only for yourself, for pennies a day with no benefits because that's all the free, unencumbered meatpacking industry thought you were worth. But you didn't dare go on strike unless you wanted to get yourself shot or beaten up by some Pinkerton guy. All of which goes a long way toward explaining why people used to drink and smoke so much.
But it wasn't all bad. We weren't "burdened" with the costs of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Also, as you lay there dying in your bed from some easily preventable illness because there were no laws mandating drinkable water, if you didn't have the money for anything but morphine to make the end easier, you could pay your doctor by telling him to help himself to a chicken or two on the way out.
Who is John Galt? John Galt was a brilliant twelve year old who would have changed the world for the better in a thousand different ways, but he died of Dysentery in 1891 because his parents lived in a libertarian society where "I got mine, you can go screw yourself" was still the prevailing philosophy of the nation."
Ditto
The Ayn Rand philosophy describes a scorched-earth economic plan for the future.
The Pauls must not have spent much time in the South before 1965, or for that matter have studied it at all. Segregation didn't continue because of anything the federal government did. Now the state governments--those wonderful laboratories of democracy--are another matter. They reacted to the desires of the rich and powerful--the whites in control--who wanted to protect their wealth and power.
There is nothing about capitalism, libertarianism, or any other "ism" that is "self-correcting." The federal government had to step in to create a somewhat improved balance of equality of opportunity.
Well, that makes one of us.
He's at the very least letting his own white privilege severely hamper his perspective.
we'd be completely free to be as free from critical thinking as the Pauls, completely free to be complete idiots.
As someone pointed out one time, a Libertarian is simply a Republican with no conscience whatsoever.
i'd say that's fair; they're approaching anarchists.
Since when does a Republican have a conscience? Libertarians live in a fool's paradise and are too dumb to figure out (or too smart to announce) their beliefs require the overthrowing of the Constitution. The end result of Republican rule too is the ending of constitutional rule. Republicans have a long history of lies, death, debt, dishonor, and treason. Some Libertarians are up front and viscous in their attacks on America, specifically Ted Nugent.
The GOP didn't always have this wide libertarian streak. Back when there were such things as liberal and moderate Republicans, you could speak of Republicans having a conscience (and principles). Of course, these days, the GOP seems to be all social "conservatives" and libertarians, so Covah's remarks are on the money. John Dean even used the assertion that the GOP lacks a conscience as the title of a book (www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/B001G8WNEG/ref=tmm_pap_title_0).
that right there says it all. the fact that he backs up his position of a "no, he wouldn't vote for", with property rights, and i realize it has to do with that one title, VII, but it speaks volumes.
property ...ownership... is worth more then any human... yet alone an animal or environment. it's very primitive.
Yes, and remember when slaves were considered property, not people? They were valued simply as a commodity, to build the South. The Civil War was very much about the survival of the southern economy/businesses/plantation owners.
*disclaimer : blunt suggestive language is used, i turned off my filter just to be as libertarian as possible.
as for your question,
we would be free to get @!$%#ed without anyone giving a @!$%# unless they had some type of @!$%#ing ownership to give that @!$%#. caring would be for pussies...success would be for dicks.
Hi Ellen,
You nailed it.
Everything said by Rand Paul and Ron Paul indicates they want to protect property rights and discrimination because they favor a return to a society based on ownership of other people.
Either that or they have a mentally illness that eliminates all conscious control of their mouth. Tourette's Syndrome? It is inherited.
@Carrie-Anne. I'm curious as to whether you believe that business people own their places of business (assuming they bought the real estate).
If they do, then this means that have the right to admit or exclude whoever they want from that property--whether we approve of their decision or not. Since this is is what it means to own property.
If you think that anti-discrimination mandates are legitimate, you are tacitly assuming that business people are not the owners of their places of business, but that the state is the true owner. That's a position which has far-reaching implications.
No, it is not true that if a business may not discriminate then the state is the actual owner. It is the case with business as it is with anything else in a civilized society: the rights of the individual are limited to the extent that the exercise of one's rights may not interfere with the rights of others, nor cause harm to others.
Essentially, libertarianism is a political rationalization employed by sociopaths in order to convince themselves (and others) that their illness is actually a sign of superior mental health.
The State is the true owner of all business, there are plenty of taxes & fees paid by a business to operate
Like I said libertarians lack the responsibility necessary to belong to a society. They are the Jersey Shore of political ideologies.
What if the Paul's got their way, & they could do what they want to the property, & a group took over that land by force -- wouldn't they THEN expect the Federal government to step in and use it's power?
Ah-haha, nice one.
bitbutter,
i do believe one is the true owner of business - discrimination laws protect both owner and the public from hate and the right to do true business.
discrimination laws is a social construct - even though business place is property and earnings is property, conduct is not property.
conduct - be it behind business hours or off the clock is subjected to social laws.
we live in a society together..we have social rules for a reason.
Rousseau figured that on out in 1750. Look up the "social contact". Denying the social contract figures into the "absolutist" 17th century. The earlier medieval mind was not absolutist but saw things in a grading scale.
Bitbutter,#6.4, lets view slaves as (mobile) property..... as they were legally bought and sold like any other commodity, including realestate.
Female slaves were property with benefits that could pay dividends..... of the reproductive kind.....
The owner had the right to enter his property..... and/ or allow customers to enter his property or properties, thus increasing his net worth....
The owner could also set up his own bank...... allowing certain customers to make deposits...... wherewith the customers could either collect their dividends in human kind or if coinage was preferred then in money when the human kind (offspring) was sold......
Owners could also increase his wealth by allowing others to just enter his properties and make deposits....... without any guaranteed return on deposits..... and if there are dividends from the deposits the owner of the business keeps that for himself as operating cost for the service provided.
This only goes to show that during those times that some owners had good breeding...... while other did not.... hmmmm
This makes one wonder if that is where the term...having good breeding or have good breeding .... came from .... as in Jim and Jane Doe have good breeding.... which one takes to mean being gentrified/of the gentry or of the monied/land owning or well mannered class as opposed to being one of the serfs or (classless) common folk. Hmmm
There were States where this sort of humans as property and could be owned as slaves beliefs were the order of the day, while there were States where this was not the belief or order of the day and who frowned upon this inhuman/inhumane business practice.
So there were States sanctioned slavery and thus those States were slavery enablers. While States who believed that people are not farm animals and cannot/should not be owned and bred as slaves were slavery dis-enablers.....
What is a state if not a large or even small area of land in which the people who live there/within its borders, decide together that they will follow and be bound by certain rules, regulations ie laws that they or the majority of the people that live there have agreed upon......
One could therefore say that it is the People that make the State rather than the Land mass making the State.
Land does not care who lives on it.... if it did shouldn't the land have disappeared into a black hole, when it was taken away from the aboriginal people who were the owners of it?
If the state is therefore the people with their ways of thinking/thoughts, rules, regulation and laws that they set down to live within or be governed by, as opposed to the land mass being the state, then one could say that the state i.e. the people who are living on that land,(i,e, within that specified/ agreed upon area/amount of land space/ border) are the true owners.
To change discriminatory way of thinking and in practice that was allowed by law, would therefore require other laws outlawing this way of thinking and practice...... thus discrimination would be made illegal by law.
The majority of the states (people) that comprised the USA believed slavery and discrimination based on race/colour/creed was wrong..... therefore the federal govt had to be 'encouraged' to change that mindset by setting forth new laws outlawing those state approved way of operating.
As Federal laws superseeded (those) state laws that enabled this inhumane and discriminatory way of operating to continue, resulted in the civil war.
It was also Civil Right laws made at the Federal level in the 60s, that outlawed i.e. made illegal those other discriminatory practices that the Pauls believe should not have been changed.
This leads one to wonder if the Pauls (father and son) are just one's garden variety racist who would admire or have been complicit in practicing this form of man's inhumanity to man thing ....if these laws had not been changed at the Federal level, and therefore forcing them to practice/live within these laws publicly to gain public office?
It is hard to believe that they are just simple, believing in the goodness of ones fellowman..... even when there is evidence that this world is a far more complex place.
Perhaps they do not know the history of this country or they chose to forget..... Perhaps they need to have a chat with the decendants of the Aboriginal peoples of this country or the decendants of slaves, or the decendants of the first Chinese or the Japanese.....or perhaps maybe the Muslims (gasp) you know those folks of Arab or Middle Eastern decendent, chat with those other minorities like from other Asian countries, African countries and those who are here legally from South America...just to name a few?
Oh must not forget the poor of all races.... but being the entitled folks that the Pauls are .... they can afford to have elevated ideas of goodness and light that their colour buys/entitiles them to.... Hmmm
Signed.... P. EeD Off, 'Nuffsaid, USA
Thanks, Mech. I'm actually absurdly pleased with that zinger. Which is probably a sure sign that I'm about to go too far in a comment very soon. I'll have to watch that.
Libertarians live in a fools' paradise. At least they are honest about it.
Libertarians latch onto the twin major political parties. Otherwise no one would give them the time of day.
Actually they only latch onto ONE political party. No true Democrat would represent any part of their philosophy.
Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat and a Libertarian. I do not know how that can happen. Democrats believe in big government solutions based on constitutional idealism which is entirely rejected by Libertarians. Conversely, Republicans have nothing in common with Libertarians besides cutting taxes and even that is due to entirely different motivations. Libertarians are not fascists but almost anarchists.
how?
If I am wrong about Kucinich let me know. But in researching my post I find support for calling Kucinich a Libertarian.
i found several links with satire in calling him a libertarian. one site asked if he was joining the tea party...but i'd like to find more evidence to support what you stated.
i always thought of him as the little man's man. in other words he stands up for liberation of suppressed people.
No, Covah. Kucinich believes in government intervention to facilitate social and economic justice, and to stimulate the economy. He's almost the antithesis of a Libertarian.
mpguy, i thought the same - that he's the antithesis of libertarian.
Most of my family are libertarians, and it's gotten to the point I can't speak to most of them any more. The difference in understanding "government" is simply too profound. To them, government is some outside entity telling you what to do, and ordering your life. The free market should do that, right? That way you're responsible for your own choices. Sounds great - in theory. As the other posters have pointed out, it doesn't work in reality, and I prefer to live in reality.
I see government differently. Imperfect as it is, I see it as the voice of the people, and in most cases, it's the only voice we really have. We DO have choices when we vote and when we bring our concerns to those we elect, and we have a better chance of working together for the public good through popular government than simply through economics. The marketplace is too easily corrupted to avoid a few trampling the rights of others.
The segregation question is still relevant because that is where the rubber hit the road. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, and it's one issue where government involvment became intense and dramatic. As a Southerner, I know that without government "interference" in private business in this case, we would still be living in a United States which tolerated second-class citizenship. Nothing had changed after generations to improve the opportunities of Black people here, and it would absolutely have continued. It was simply too pervasive and entrenched to change simply through market forces.
The frightening issue for me today is not the size or scope of government, but the attempts by corporations and moneyed interests to steer it away from being the voice of all of the people.
To them, government is some outside entity telling you what to do, and ordering your life.
furthering your point, here in the US, government is "We the People" -- a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- so when the Pauls say that government shouldn't interfere and that people wouldn't allow/patronize such "X Only" (whether X is Blacks, Gays, Atheists, Liberals, etc. (and yes, i deliberately couched those in the opposite of the signs would actually say) businesses, what really is the difference? simply that they've said 'we don't want to have to deal with that' in advance, via government versus 'we're not dealing with that' after the fact, via the free market?
ultimately, the Pauls and other libertarians want to deny a key tenet of US government and philosophy, that the government exists in large part to protect the sociopolitical 'weak' from the sociopolitical 'strong', the minority from the majority.
the difference between conservative and libertarian is the difference between being run thru with a sword and being beaten with a shield.
I can't help adding the ironic fact that the most ardent libertarians in my family have been the ones who have profited the most from government, through the military or government jobs. I don't know how I ended up being this family's token liberal democrat (socialist in their eyes). Thirty years ago I was campaigning for Reagan!
I appreciate your posts samiam- I am in a similar family situation. I recently visited the mother ship in Mississippi where the conversation was about why public sector unions are bad (my family has benefited greatly from the UAW) and how to keep Israel as being perceived as an island of hate and apartheid in the middle of a sea of Arab awakening and call for democracy... I wasn't prepared to defend union workers to union workers, and I was stunned to find out they have an opinion on Israel when they don't give a crap about 95% of people in their own country!
But we aren't going to change them sam, so save yourself the stress. Try to keep the conversation light- how did you make that bbq sauce? You always make the best banana pudding. Thank god! It's been so long since I had chow chow- give me a bunch!
@samiam Reagan would be a socialist by today's Republican standardss if not for all the mythologizing of him, but hey, when have they ever been able to keep history or any other facts accurate?
"Reagan would be a socialist by today's Republican standards"
So would Nixon. They get crazier and crazier.
And the Birchers thought Eisenhower was a Communist. The crazy has deep roots.
Thanks for the great comments and good advice too! I don't feel so alone after all. Banana pudding for everyone!
The Paul fellows don't see their views as racist, but then I suppose you really can't see the forest if you are some of the trees.
Ditto.
The Pauls (at least Ron in any case) understand that there's a difference between "I disapprove of X" and "I approve of the use of force to prevent X". The author of the opening post seems to understands this too. It's a shame that most of the commentators don't.
Off topic but... Rachel, can you do a segment on this:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/13/heritage-flip-flop/
and then get your producer to hound the Sunday and Evening shows to invite you to explain it in person.
It really needs your attention!
... you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that, and if they did, they'd be an idiot and they'd go out of business.
If that were the case, then why was Woolworths still in business in the first place? The reason is that it has nothing to do with business. It has everything to do with society. Back in those days, the south was still advocating a society where people could be, and were treated as second-class (or worse). If that idea of social acceptance wasn't tolerated then (as it isn't now) then Woolworths would've opened up their counters, their bathroom, their water fountains, etc to everyone....just like they eventually did. It took the government to step in and correct the social mores in order to enforce the laws that had been decided upon.
Ron Paul had no shot in '08, and he's got no shot now. It's sad to watch this family get publicly educated on the meaning of 'all men are created equal'.
chuck, i wouldn't say he has no shot - it's amazing what people would do in the name of bread and water.
The Paul supporters sure were obnoxious as @!$%#, though. Listening to them preach, I strained my eyeballs from rolling them too much.
Oh, hey. I hate to double post but I can't find the May 12th episodes on msnbc's site.
Yeah, seems the May 12 vids are MIA.
A lot of clips are missing or simply do not work from msnbc.com
Those who think there would not be any white only signs are simply avoiding reality. How many places NOW are whites only? Our history has been littered with signs like whites only or no Irish need apply, to fantasize that those signs would not be there today is simply that fantasy.
wow. 'your right to be on TV'; just... wow.
okay, MSNBC, where the hell is my TV show?! i have a name, a general theme, and some recurring segments picked out.
but seriously, if what Paul says was true*, what about this? or this? where's the revulsion that would've put them out of business decades ago?
* 100% true, that is. he's partially right: they are idiots.
Bryan Fischer is just a half step to the left of Fred Phelps.
our left or their left?
Fred Phelp's left. They both believe that God punishes for America's sins.
i meant that to be sarcastic, but i dunno: didn't Phelps visit Iraq to show his support?
First of all Rachel, I love your show. I watch everyday and love you, chris and ed. But today you hit one of my buttons. Im sorry. I was alive during the time you mentioned. No doubt about it, racism and racial violence was bad then. But that was a half century ago. First of all you making what Ron Paul said a Black issue was offensive to EVERY group who gets discriminated against. Ron Paul never used the word "black". You inserted it. Maybe you shoul have asserted something abou the horrible discrimination Latinos have to suffer when looking for work. How about Muslims? Or someone who is openly gay in that wonderful town of Annison Alabama? Just the poor, poor blacks. Your in New York, go to a predominaty black school in Brooklyn or Bronx, put some hidden cameras in the classroom and maybe you will understand why there tests scores are so low. How many organizations are there that can legally call themselves an organization for whites? How many for blacks? The Negro College Fund is ok? So before you jump on the poor, poor blacks, put that camera in the classes. Somehow the nation has let blacks live in this perpetual state of oh poor me. Even Bill Cosby agrees with me. He told his own people to get off their lazy whining butts and go to work and school. What did the Black community tell Bill Cosby? Called him a horrible person and an "Uncle Tom" they did. Go to your archives and pull the tapes. Any group who has enough economic power to get Don Imus fired for one comment when Imus made CBS $32 million a year is NOT discriminated against.
Ron Paul said that a person who owns a business should be able to sell to anyone he wants and to refuse to sell to anyone he wants. That is Freedom. Now if they beat them off the property with a stick? That is illegal. But to force someone to sell to someone he doent want too? No, thats wrong. Look, I personally think Paul is an idiot and no one from Texas would I trust anyway. But that does not mean he is wrong either. Funding Israel, pot and this last issue? He might be an idiot but anyone can get lucky and he hit thee in a row. Lets see, clean out our prisons of pot smokers, save hundreds of bilions giving guns to people who will use them to take other peoples homes (who then attack US) and allowing people to run their own businesses? Yeah, all bad ideas.
Your better than this Rachel.:)
you're, not your. Property does not override personhood, just for starters. Your property rights do not override a human being's basic needs. Do you think that some restaurant owner's bias is more important than your right to food?
Now there's someone racial historians find credible.
carlo, if rachel inserted black, it's because of the civil act; it's the topic of what they were talking about. the civil right act stemmed on from the civil rights movement, which was the liberation of the black community mainly across the south, but the liberation nationwide.
the civil right act - a liberation of any discrimination - was fought on the foundation of liberating the black community, but benefited by all.
as for the education of the black community, that's another battle in which would decay even more if we ever rolled back to pre-civil-rights-act.
i think a mix of politics of libertarian and republican would roll back education into the private sector and then giving those private schools property rights to exclude.
it might have been 50 years ago, but those ideas have never went away.
Freedom is NOT deciding who you will or won't serve. Freedom is being able to buy anything anywhere because you are an enfranchised member of society and the only color respected is green. Even a whisker short of that is, by definition, Jim Crow. And clearly you would be just fine with that.
And yes, Ron Paul was talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so yes. He WAS talking about black people. And he was wrong. The racial terrorism of the KKK and the more subtle violence of the White Citizen Councils which had been lauded by Haley Barbour was all illegal, as was the practice of redlining and all went generally unpunished. After all who's to complain when it is being pepetrated by the civic and economic leaders of the community? The argument than and voiced by you now remains the same...states rights.
You, sir, are a bigot and disgust me beyond words. I expect more from a viewer of the Rachel Maddow Show.
The blacks are so powerful. A white guy was fired because he said something racist against blacks. That tells everyone the blacks are a machine. It's kind've like with the gays saying their discriminated- no you're not, you got DADT repealed. Duh. White people can't get no breaks.
Smug oik. Do you really think being pretentious and talking down to someone way more educated that you are is a clever thing to do? Or that starting by claiming to love the show that anyone would be put off the scent? It doesn't take much effort to find what other comments you've dropped around Newsvine. Fair amount of race-baiting going on there, mate. You've got issues, and you're a tr0ll. You are certainly not a viewer of TRMS. My impression of your record is that you look for topics that touch upon race issues and try to stir up trouble.
And this is as good an opportunity as any to say that the whole "property rights" thing so beloved by libertarians is, in my view, only a diversionary tactic. Since both Pauls, for example, like to cite "property rights" as a reason why the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing, it seems fairly obvious that "property rights" is as much a cover for racial discrimination as "states' rights".
(And for those just tuning in, Mickey is using scathing sarcasm. Just so nobody feels inclined to jump up and down on her throat. That would annoy me.)
MeddlingMonk yeah, you can find me. Because I use my name and not some hideaway alias. You really no nothing about my education so in making that statement your intelligence just shines through. But I am not one to resort to name calling. I am not race baiting anymore than Martin Luther King or MalcomX were racebating. I see a gross imbalance and we are supposed to be a society of equal rights and equal justice. One race, ANY race having the right to be exclusive but no other race can is just stupid. Why isnt Martan Lawarence called down for his racial comments against whites but Don Imus is? Thats NOT balance. I do like to hear you call me a racist and a libertarian in the same paragraph. Do you know the defination of either one?
But I do like Rachel and think she is one of the best commentators on the air. Even thought I named her my comments were more directed at her writers and producer, who made her say what she did. Nothing wrong with civil rights but they do not have to be an all or nothing thing.
Carlo I hope u read the comments. The people answered all of your questions.
Martin Lawrence doesn't have a daily radio/TV show, he is a comedian. Don Imus did have a daily forum. He misused his position and decided to attack Black women for a laugh. When you compare two things they need to be in the same category.
Ron and Rand Paul are racists. It is what it is. They are proud of their stance. The "freedom" they want is the right to discriminate.
"Libertarians" or whatever u call yourselves need to own the racism and make it yours.
@Carlo, if you were indeed a fan of Maddow you would know that no one makes her say anything. She co-produces every segment of TRMS.
Carlo - I can't even think of a thing to say that my blog buddies haven't said for me...rage on Mickey, DonQ, Monk, BBones, et al. I'm happy with you doing my raging for me!
Actually, I'm done trying to nail that particular jell-o to the wall. I've had my fun delivering a few hard kicks up the backside, but there comes the time to recognize a tr0ll, a fraud, a race-baiter, and a sociopath for what it is and cut off the food supply.
And, and I see Ron Paul was on Pox News digging himself in deeper. (thinkprogress.org/2011/05/15/paul-ss-medicare-slavery/)
thanks for the link, meddlingmonk.
The irony...it burns. Whenever Rachel says something about gay civil rights someone will come along and say she only cares about gay people. Whenever she says something about black civil rights someone will come along and say she only cares about black people. And if she mentions them at the same time? "How dare she compare the two by mention them in the same segment!" Really, damned no matter what she does (by people who probably aren't all that important anyway).
Doctor Paul, and his son, have a likable thing about them, but when they talk about race, sex, and sexuality, they sound like they need a college course in each of these areas of study. They really don't get it, and they would be better humans if they did.
Their ideas are equally odious on other subjects. Rand Paul recently said that if health care is a right, then that means slavery for him (thinkprogress.org/2011/05/11/rand-paul-health-care-slavery/). As with all his and his father's thinking, this betrays a selfish and sociopathic attitude. Of course, for followers of Ayn Rand, those are virtues. But, still, if Rand Paul doesn't want people knocking him up and wanting his services, why did he become a physician in the first place? Only to make money? And maybe revel in human suffering as a side benefit? Perhaps psychological screening should be required for those trying to enter medical schools.
You're giving a lot of credit, and power, to psychologists.
reminds me of how W would be a great guy to hang out with, have a beer with... We have an intelligent, level headed, conscientious POTUS now, and I am not at all eager to go back to the latest "good ol boy" the republiCANTs march out there.
That's a valid criticism. And even if they could identify this kind of illness (which they probably can't) there's not really any mechanism to keep such people out of fields where they could do more harm than good. But in a sane world (not ours) Rand Paul would be a janitor. And we'd all have ponies.
Both Pauls object(ed) to the civil rights act of '64 because of the property rights part of the law. The rest was fine, but that pesky little property rights part, that's was the "no go" for them. But what a strange way to answer the question. Would you support the 1964 Civil Rights Act? A reasonable answer would be:
"Yes, because I think that the elimination of the Jim Crow laws was a very good thing. However, I would have had reservations about the property rights part." That leads you into the property rights discussion without tempting anyone to say "hey, you oppose civil rights?"
Their answer SOUNDS the same but has a completely different feel:
"No, because of the property right provisions, though I support the end of Jim Crow laws." This doesn't lead you into a property rights discussion.
Is this simply bad messaging? Did they flunk public communication class in college? I don't think so. I think they are putting what to them is the most important part of the message first. Property rights are the most important, civil rights are less. This doesn't make them racist... rather, in my opinion, they have the relationship backwards.
Protection of property rights (land, not people) as a foundation principle of our constitution and society. Or at least it used to be (but that's a different discussion). Property rights, however, are meaningless unless they are equally available to all members of the society. Property rights depend on equality under the law, that is, equality is a prerequisite for all other rights in a just society. So with due respect to the Monsignors Rand, I believe they have the relationship backwards between property and freedom.
No, they say what they mean. You give them credit for intentions that are not there.
Perhaps I did, though that was not my intention. They are mistaken, misguided, or ignorant maybe... but I wouldn't ascribe bad intentions to them based on reading a couple transcripts.
Is that they same thing as "giving them credit?" I don't know, maybe it is.
They're well-educated, well-off white men. I think they have had plenty of opportunity to consider their views. And I think that good-intentioned people would rather project their own good intentions than acknowledge that the Pauls' statements are wilfully made. It's less upsetting to think that a person probably means well than to think they actually mean ill. But I, personally, am not willing to give endless chances. The Pauls have repeatedly made their position clear, and I see no reason to believe they are just repeatedly wording things badly.
If libertarians like the Pauls were in charge today and private businesses were allowed to discriminate, I bet we'd see a whole lot of "No Gays Allowed" signs in store windows. People would support these businesses too, with the amount of hatred for gays that exists in this country especially in the Bible belt.
Is it ever fair to single out a group of fellow human beings and exclude them?
What's wrong with "No gays" or No blacks"? Answer:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union
Wedge-issue politics is unAmerican.
Gays aren't protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's legal under federal law to refuse to serve gays or deny employment. Some states have laws against it though.
Most of that kind of discrimination occurs in parochial schools because they can expel gay students or children of gay parents on the basis that the homosexual lifestyle goes against the religious teachings of the school.
It's not nearly as widespread as it was with segregation though because wherever gays aren't allowed, gays will just go closeted. Sometimes a gay couple will get kicked out of a restaurant if they show any kind of affection. Gays are allowed, but not if they're openly gay.
I've had silly incidents where a restaurant would refuse to put my partner and I on the same meal ticket and we were forced to pay separately. Not quite like putting a "No Gays Allowed" sign up, but obviously we didn't go back there.
I've heard of gays being refused a single bed hotel room. As if forcing them to sleep in a room with two beds would force them to sleep in separate beds. But of course a double room costs more than a single room.
It's a different, and sometimes more complicated experience than being black. The discrimination isn't as "in your face" and is more internalized because a gay person doesn't know who's a raging homophobe until they do or say something that reveals they're gay.
Then we need a new civil rights act. Not such a radical idea, since the 1964 act wasn't the first, but up until your remarks here I hadn't been thinking on that scale. So, thank you.
I'm all in favor of micro-revolutions, but sometimes sweeping the board is good, too.
That's the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. It never takes off though and frequently dies in committee. And that only covers employment and not public accommodations.
i wish we'd get it passed. :(
WE means "we" as in we are all in it together, black and white, male and female, straight and gay, documented and undocumented, rich and poor. Anyone who says otherwise is unAmerican. Anyone who plays wedge issue games such as attacking the underprivileged or favoring the rich or denying marriage to particular groups or demonizing immigrants or attacking political opposition as traitors or denying reproductive rights or posing as morally superior or hyping religious values belongs in a different county.
uh huh. exactly. but also "we" as in the transgendered.
Oh, Im sorry, one other thing. Refusal to give someone a job, or medical care, or government services, because of race is discrimination. Refusing to sell something to someone because of race simply because they have a Right to a job, they have a Right to medical care, they have a Right to government services that they pay taxes too. They do NOT (or should not) have a Right to force me to sell my property. The Civil Rights Act was meant to give people the rights to certain basic liberties. Buying and selling are no basic liberties. Those come with freedom and if you take that freedom of choice away from the vendor than you are stealing his basic liberties, ie, property.
Don't you think there is a difference between using your property privately (as your home, for instance) and using your property to serve the public? Do you think you have the right to define "the public"?
@bagelbones, as a private entity, I do retain the right to only choose gay folks to fix my plumbing or mow my lawn. But if I were a public entity (funded by taxpayer dollars), no such discrimination should be allowed.
Freedom is the ability to discriminate against whomever you want. Don't ask the person being discriminated against whether or not they are free- it's all about the business owner. Society owes nothing to the consumer, just to the business. Businesses can't get no breaks.
You certainly have the choice as a private person whose services to employ. If you only wanted left-handed, Welsh men with facial hair mowing your lawn, that would be up to you. And, of course, public entities may not discriminate. But you left out private enterprises offering services (not to mention employment) to the public. The Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination in that sphere as well, which is what gets the Pauls' pants in such a twist. They don't seem to understand that private enterprise offering goods and services to the public is not in the same class as a person sitting at home minding their own business. In fact, they seem intent on deliberately confusing things.
@MeddlingMonk, of course you are corrent for enterprises offering services to the public. My response to @bagelbones was incomplete in that regard.
But how does that work for private enterprises offering employment to the public? Or perhaps I misread your "not to mention employment" parenthetical?
@Medlingmonk
I think your use of the ambiguous word 'public' is muddying the water here. It's not a term that helps clarify anything in this context.
Individuals interact with one another. They discriminate in who they interact with to different degrees. Sometimes these interactions use a common medium of exchange (money).
It's not clear why property rights should be taken seriously in the class of interactions which do not involve the exchange of money, and yet not apply in the class of exchanges that do. Can you explain why you believe this distinction makes sense?
@mightbe, the parenthetical remark about employment was intended, but badly executed, to mean that just as a business may not refuse their goods and services to people on the basis of race and other personal characteristics, so they also may not base employment on race and etc. In other words, businesses can't discriminate against their own employees any more than their customers. In other other words, I was trying to fill in the gap in your response but didn't do it very well.
@bitbutter, can you explain why your question should make sense? I never said diddly about money. The distinction between public and private is essentially the difference between what affects just yourself and what affects other people. I may yell 'Fire!' in my own home with no consequences to anyone, whether or not there is a fire. I may not yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire, because there will be consequences for others. It would make no difference if I were the owner of the theater. Money and property are beside the point, and property rights are a libertarian dog-whistle that I don't take seriously.
@ Carlo:
Okay, Carlo, does this mean that you have the right to discriminate when it comes time to sell your house? Can you pick and choose a buyer of a certain race? Doesn't that produce questionable and unfair neighborhood/business situations? Or does that not matter to you?
I'm just curious why it never occurs to you to walk in the shoes of the person being discriminated against. Can you really claim it's freedom when you're discriminated against? Do you feel free when someone refuses you service? Or do you feel like you are being singled out, targeted, harassed, and your basic liberties are being stripped? Why do we believe the individual doesn't matter in the equation? Why should a business have their rights protected, but an individual should not have his or her rights protected? There are going to be times when a business' rights will infringe on the rights of the individual. Why should the government protect the business, but not the individual? That's really what this conversation is about. When individual and business rights are at odds you believe the business deserves the protection, not the consumer. I do not understand how you can claim that it's "freedom" in this instance, but not in the other. The reality is both entities are in conflict and the government much choose which to inconvenience. The individual has less powers than the business already, so why should the gov't side w/ the more powerful entity? Why is that OK? If I am protected against discrimination by the federal government then the business gets the benefit of my money and participation. If the business is protected so that it can discriminate the business looses my money and if what libertarians are arguing (which is that it would lead to more customers refusing to shop) then that actually would lead to more harm to the business than good. Why should the government, given this realization, side w/ the business and not the individual consumer? Again why are individual rights seen as so trivial against businesses? Why is it that you don't bother to walk in the shoes of the discriminated party before you make your decision?
:)
especially since the government is for the people by the people...
MeddlingMonk, mightbealiberal, bagelbones, and others posting above -
In discussions of employment discrimination, it is important to remember that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines employers:
Food, shelter and clothing are considered basic necessities for survival. It's not even a liberty thing. It's a survival thing. How can you have liberty if you're dead? Or do you really expect marginalized people to be able to hunt for their own food with a homemade spear, squat on some unowned land and make clothes out of animal hide?
Seriously! How are people supposed to get basic necessities if they don't have a right to buy it? When individuals in whole sections of a town or state decide they don't want to serve certain people, what are those people supposed to do? Move? So they're only free in certain parts of the country?
@GrrrlRomeo -- You asked the perfect questions, these folks who say "pull up your boot straps" have boots, there are many that have no boots to pull up their straps.
A private citizen has the right to hire whomever she pleases. A private company serving the public has other obligations.
Exactly.
As far as I can tell 'The public' is a collective term for individuals. If a private company interacts with 'the public' then a private citizen interacts with 'the public' too. It's not clear why you believe that discrimination is acceptable when money isn't changing hands, but unacceptable when it is. Can you explain?
And again with the money nonsense. It's like money has some kind of sacramental function for you, making whatever it touches holy and inviolate. Why should anyone take your questions seriously when they are based on the fetishization of a medium of exchange? I'd rather just reject your framing of the issues and be done with it.
Who makes up any governing body? People. Where do these people come from? They are elected from among the people, by the people, to serve the people. And who are business owners? People. What happens when "the people" put up signs to keep out certain groups of other people? How far will it have to go before "the people" decide that they should intervene on the people's behalf? If "the people" are getting tax subsidies and small business grants and special loans to start a business, which is essentially money from "the people", are they not, then, beholden to "the people?" Let's say that the people decided they don't want to allow Christians into their businesses. How will they verify who is a Christian and who isn't? Will I, as a Christian, have to deny my beliefs and my God, in order to get lunch? Will this be okay with the Paul family? Take caution before answering that question. It is very easy to say that discrimination should be allowed and hide under the guise of protecting the rights of property owners when you are not the one being discriminated against. Rand Paul's stand on the Civil Rights Act obviously did not hurt his chances of getting elected. In fact, I would venture to say that it may have helped him.
I am not one to be alarmist, but I sometimes fear for my country. I visited the Holocaust museum in Skokie, IL today and as I watched a video documenting the rise of Nazism, I could not help but think of our political climate as of late. (And no, I am not calling anyone a Nazi. Get over it.) The rise was incremental. At every step of the way, there were people who thought it would just pass. That it would fizzle out. There were people who thought that there was no way such a radical group would gain much power. And look at what happened. How many candidates have we laughed at and called "crazy" and thought "there's no way that person will get elected?" And yet, some of these same people either got elected or came seriously close to getting elected. I shudder to think what will happen to this country if we continue down this divisive road we are on. The "crazies" win when they succeed in turning average folk against each other. If business owners are allowed to discriminate, then it is only a matter of time that everyone else thinks that is just fine, too. Again, I shudder to think of what will become of our country if that happens. I hope I am not around to see it close hand. I hope I can just read about it in the newspapers from abroad, where I am living comfortably as an ex-pat.
around 2:53 ron paul says
it wasn't created by the laws. it was protected by the certain laws that eventually were retracted. segregation still continued to be enforced, even though no laws supported it.
Good point. Segregation was created by people exercising their bigotry before being codified into law. I would add that since the Civil Rights Act was passed, our initial efforts to reverse segregation have been pretty much abandoned in the face of intense backlash. On the plus side, each generation since the '60s seems to be marginally more tolerant that the previous generation. At this rate, we should have racial harmony in time for the sun to swell into a red giant. As people like Ron and Rand Paul teach us, we really have to work harder to be better.
Monk, I think it will be before the sun goes "red giant" on us. But color me optimistic. :)
Pat Paulson for president!Please!
Right now I am living in south korea. My best friends here are koreans. Not one of my friends sees me as a racist. Also as a white person I am part of the silent minority. I have gotten a distinctly different take on race then any other white person in America who has not lived in a society that they do not influence more than any other segment. Interesting to note that this subject pertained to what right business owners have because I intend to open a bar here. I am investing for the next 3 years in a shared account with my korean business partner where half of our incomes go. The theme of our bar as we have discussed will be a korean song(written in korean, then translated into english to represent both of us) PEOPLE ARE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN FLOWERS. We are trying to make korean customers and foreigners such as myself feel welcome. I am stating this personal information to help people to possibly understand my character.
All this said, the video put out by Rachel yesterday about doctor paul was in an academic sense extremely weak.
She states that Ron's and Rand's objections to the 1964 civil right's act "implies" complicity with segregation, whereas the truth is she has selectively extracted this position to the (and this is important) exclusion of all other postive issues within the much broader position called property rights. In fact she is viciously employing three common fallacies (association,straw man, and equivocation) with false assertions.
Let us take the flip the side of this argument. Should a black man have to allow KKK members into his restaurant??? If you are a collectivist and see people in groups then black people are a group. Also by terms of membership so are the KKK nut jobs. So people supporting that blacks are allowed on any private property held by business owners must allow KKK nut jobs anywhere. And let's not forget I have seen signs at home that say "We reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone". I guess as long as you don't name the group the goverment finds it permissable.
Let's also try to remember only collectivists can see groups, thereby make distinctions, create hierarchies, and allow for the possiblity of discrimination. Libertaranism requires one to see everyone as individuals and by doing so makes everyone equal destroying racism. I never hear where liberalism starts, what's it's grounding point, what's it's moral compass??? Libertaranism (which the doctor follows feverently) starts with the idea all things, all discusions, all social and economic interactions start with a first tenet. The principle of non-agression. The principle of non-agression simply stated is the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you in a legal sense. Some idiot not allowing another person on there property for idiotic reasons may have hurt someone's feelings but have not jeopardized their personhood or their property.
Now if we don't have property rights can someone be harmed??? The American Revolution started over property rights!!!! The Quartering Act of 1765 allowed soliders to cross the thresold of a owner's home and partake in his food and drink. A destruction of privacy and property. Today for instance instead of it being soliders would black people like it if any police officer could enter their home willy nilly without subpeonas, without probable cause etc. etc. etc.
Rachel didn't explain at all Dr. Paul's fears on the destruction on property rights. If she put up both scenarios and said this it what I fear most I'd have been completely fine. But it's intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.
And if someday I have a neighbor running a restaurant next door to my future bar that has a sign that says YELLOWS ONLY I will not deface his property. I will boycott, bring my friends attention to it, and try to socially marginalize him. But if that doesn't work, I will go to sleep better with that than the discomfort of worrying about the korean police having a right to kick my door down anytime they like. And that scenario is just as extreme as an idiot putting up a racist sign in his business in the year 2011. It's not the 60's.
To me this issue leads to first amendment and fourth amendment issues. And putting it solely in the category of race is disingenious. I can agree with someone having different opinions but to call me a fool or a racist (when I am neither) and not share my side of the argument is dishonest, juvenille, partisan, destructive, and uninformative to the populace at large.
You miss the point, & you fail to recognize what has already happened in the southern USA. If in the south a black business owner said no whites, that business would be burned to the ground & it's owners hung, to think it would be any other way is simply ignorant.
@jim, you accuse Maddow of logical fallacies then provide no evidence to support your accusations. I also agree with @Jason, you have missed the point.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on libertarianism.
Link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
"Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things."
"Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things."
Emphasis mine.
In other words, property rights are a outcome of liberty. The use of property rights by individuals to forcible interfere with other people's liberty is not consistent with libertarian philosophy. The use of property rights as an argument to forcible deny the moral equality of other people is also not a libertarian principle.
Perhaps, if Mr. Paul had begun his response with the libertarian principle of morally equal agents and continued to the issue of balancing negative liberties within a society, and then continued to why he had misgivings about government's role, then he wouldn't have said he wouldn't have voted for the law.
The Civil Rights Law of 64 was an attempt by our government to ensure the maximum equal negative liberty for ALL citizens, which didn't exist prior to that. Until that very non-libertarian problem is resolved, any discussion of property rights is rather moot, don't you think.
So it's no wonder, to me, that people took his statements to imply a racial bias.
So many tr0lls.
As for whether a black restauranteur should be required to accept bigots as customers, the simple answer is yes. Trying to make an issue of that "question" is actually a pretty good example of a straw man argument. No one is arguing that bigots ought not be served in restaurants. That is just something you invented.
I could pick apart the rest, but that would be to take the rant way too seriously.
But I will say that I really loved that last paragraph, and in particular the final sentence which finishes up saying that anyone who does "not share [his] side of the argument is dishonest, juvenille [sic], partisan, destructive, and uninformative to the populace at large." It's takes quite a lot of chutzpah to make so totalitarian an assertion. Assuming, of course, that this guy actually understands the proper meanings of the word 'share'.
I'm sorry i meant share the infrormation of my side... of course discuss would have been simpler and less confusing....
"Libertaranism starts with the idea all things, all discusions, all social and economic interactions start with a first tenet. The principle of non-agression."
Uh, no. It starts with the sanctity of private as stated "property rights are a outcome of liberty. The use of property rights by individuals to forcible interfere with other people's liberty is not consistent with libertarian philosophy." Precisely. Property rights that infringe on other rights is acceptable and violence to protect property rights is encouraged.
Cross burnings for the sake of preserving property values. Ditto lynching and the quietly murderous activities of the Haley Barour lauded White Citizens Councils.
P.S. I'm drinking with my korean business partner at the end next week. Please explain to me why I'm a racist? I'll present you're argument to him so he can straighten me out.
I would refer you to the All In the Family episode when Archie & Mr Jefferson conspire to keep out a Latino family. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4otkdlNZ7A .
Please explain why we should believe that you even have a Korean business partner? Your wide load of smug doesn't really make me willing to take you at your word. How about telling us your WAN IP address, so we can at least determine whether you are even posting from the correct part of the world?