What, no Rand Paul thread?

It's been a couple days now and there's nobody here talking about Rand Paul. Is this section dead or just in hibernation?

Ok, so what do you think? Please, no horseshit about "he never said that". I watched the original interview by Rachel Maddow. Paul bobbed and weaved furiously in a way that would have made Joe Frazier proud, but it was clear that he feels that private business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason - race, religion, politics, sexuality and maybe even the size of your nose. I think it's a logical assumption that he feels the same way about hiring practices.

Every American should know that the 'whites only' policies of many southern businesses in the 1960s helped the civil rights movement catch fire. The picture of Lester Maddox (later governor of Georgia)holding a gun and his son brandishing a pick handle as they chased a black guy out of their restaurant is a cultural classic.

It's illegal under the civil rights act for even a privately owned business to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Libertarians, who seem to think that property rights trump everything, apparently disagree with that portion of the act. What about you?

Well, there is now.

I think the racial aspect of his position is overhyped. I've seen no evidence of personal racial animosity on his part. His views of the law seem to be strictly ideological, & should be treated as such. "Property first" is the main ideological debate in all of our domestic politics. The rest is just a lot of peripheral silliness for the most part.

I'm torn. I'm liberal. Unlike the radical libertarians & Ayn Rand egoists, I believe that government has a function, the needs of society as a whole trump property priveliges, & human rights trump everything. That said, I don't want the radical "progressives" running roughshod over the country either. We need the debate in Congress as a check to keep things in balance & make sure our governance stays pragmatic. Although I disagree with a lot of his blather, I think Ron Paul has been a credible spokesman for the libertarian position in Congress. He can't stay there forever. I figure if that district in Kentucky is going to elect a Republican Representative anyway, they could do a lot worse than Rand Paul. The racial nonsense in this race is disingenuous at best. If that's what his opponant is going to run on in November, then I hope Paul wins. We don't need more mudslinging assholes.

While I think it's idiotic not to serve someone based on their race/religion/etc, at the end of the day it should have been left a personal choice on who you associate with. Unfortunately, making a living for one's self has become seen as a privilege to be granted by society, rather than the inherent right it really is. With that shift in view it has become acceptable for the government to tell you who you must or must not associate with in terms of business.

Further compounding the issue is the fact that they leave exceptions to the law, such as on religious grounds, as if the command of someone's imaginary friend is somehow more important than anyone else's wishes on whom they want to associate with.

The government should never be allowed to make distinctions based on race, religion, etc; however, if a private party wishes to (foolhardy as it might be) then they should be allowed to do so. They will eventually go out of business anyway because someone else will come in that doesn't shun a potential market.

I'd also like to add that there was some far fetched twisting of the interstate commerce clause that took place in order for that part of the civil rights law to be upheld.

Oh and HI Comrade! Hope all is well ^^

Rand Paul made an argument against his own ideology. If we want the govt to get off our backs we should show that we are responsible enough to work for the common good.

This is why we are treated like children because we behave like children.

Thanks for the replies, lads. Here's a few thoughts in hopes of keeping the discussion going. The elder Paul has always had my respect, if not my agreement. I guess that I'd rather see the Pauls in office than any other repubs I can think of atm - although Rand's defense of BP had me seeing red. I can't say that the younger Paul is a racist based on his position regarding the Civil Rights Act. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's an honest man with a philosophy that differs greatly from my own. But...I dunno, there's something about this passive acceptance of racism that troubles me. Does a person have a right to be racist? Certainly in his own mind, but the minute he acts on that bias, I'd say he's crossed the line. Prejudice based on race, religion or sexual orientation is a nasty concept that has caused a lot of misery in this world. A business, though privately owned, is a public place. In the 60s, we as a society said that racism was just too evil to be openly expressed in such a venue. Has Society changed so much ( in my mind, devolved) that we can now tolerate, even defend, open racism on the basis of property rights?

Anyway, I think that some of Rand's Libertarian views, such as his defense of BP, may be the ticket to beating him. If the Dems play it right, they may pick up that seat.

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?

Btw, when writing this, I was reminded of the old Mark Twain quote
“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulain

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?

---

Well, I think the big difference was that law enforcement was complicit in the racism of the South during that time. As I wrote earlier, it is unacceptable for government to act against anyone on the basis of their race, religion, political views, sexual orientation, etc. I just don't think it's the business of the government to say who you must associate with on a private basis, and a business is privately owned.

You could just as easily say that a church or synagogue is a "public place" as much as a diner is, but most people would be terribly upset if there was an attempt to tell them who they must accept into their place of worship (of course there is a First Amendment protection for religions, but I think there is a general protection of association built into the First Amendment).

Well first of all: I've never heard of a church that was closed to non-members.

The general idea that racism is protected freedom of thought sounds good in theory, but it's one of those things that doesn't work in practice. Even Rand Paul has admitted that when he said he probably would have voted for the Act because things had gotten way too far out of hand at the time. The klan was running roughshod all over the place. It wasn't just Jim Crowe. It wasn't just the south either, or just discrimination against blacks. Left unchecked, it was turning into a national security problem. Blatant racism is tantamount to "fighting words", even if there's no overt violence to start with.

The way I see it: You have every right to be an asshole. But not with impunity. If you go out of your way to piss somebody off, you have no call to bitch when they punch you in the nose. I've noticed that a lot of these so called libertarians, especially the fanatical egoists, have no problem with government intervention when they want protection from those they try to incite. Pussies.

The point of title 2 (?) is that the private company is open to the public. The interstate commerce clause worked against Woolworths because they were a nationwide chain. The feds had the power to make law involving hiring practices because labor law is their domain. You can discriminate all you like with a private club. There's no money in it though.

Quote:

---

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed with Comrade BURBS trotting out the CON line that racist businesses will fail because racism is bad business practice. I'll respond with the LIB line: how well did that work with all those southern lunch counters prior to the Civil Rights Act?

---

The entire south was an economic basket case when Jim Crowe was in practice. It really is bad business. If a corporation does it, it's a violation of their fiduciary responsibiities. Money's all green on the back. I really doubt if you could ever get back to a situation where businesses will cut off their noses to spite their faces, & that's what they were doing. Economically, the Civil Rights Act was the best thing that ever happened to the south. You can join the klan or the nazis. It's not illegal. But if you don't keep it hidden, you'll be shunned by society. The Act was a liberation for everybody from the tyranny of small minded terrorists. It changed the mindset of America.

There is soem good stuff in here and I really don't know WTF Rand was thinking when he had sided with BP.

Yeah. I haven't actually seen the Rand quote on BP. I can imagine, but I can't really comment.

I will say this though:
BP doesn't suck. They gagged, spit, & puked. Now they just blow.