[video=youtube;oknvBclbZMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oknvBclbZMI&feature=player_embedded[/video]
So how about it, Mook, Barfo.... Should a black lunch counter operator be allowed to refuse to serve a KKK member (dressed in his white sheet and all)?
Sure. Why not? It's discrimination based on group affiliation, which is perfectly legit. It's not discriminating based on the race, gender, sexual orientation or religion of the KKK member, so I don't see any problem with it. If you want to discriminate against lawyers, Laker fans, KKK members or whiny emo kids, it's your right.
You fell down the slippery slope. IMO. So if a restaurant wants to discriminate against pro basketball players, it'd be alright?
Incidentally, this was NOT Rand Paul's point. His point, which I find much more interesting, is that if the government can mandate that a private enterprise must accept black people, it might decide--or even be forced by the second amendment--to mandate that it must accept people wielding firearms. Should a bar owner be required by federal law to serve a customer openly carrying a sidearm? That's a trickier one, IMO. Rand Paul had an interesting point there. It's kind of a shame he wasn't very good at communicating it.
It's a left-handed way of refusing to serve black people because most NBA players are black. How about "can a lunch counter refuse to serve someone they think is an illegal alien?" His point is pretty clear to me. With freedom comes some risk. If you have freedom of speech, you risk having to hear horrible things. And so on. I have been consistent and clear that I (like Paul) feel there's no place for racism anywhere in society. But to have freedom, you have to allow for the bad that comes along with it. You can't legislate it away. In fact, the legislation may not have had any real effect towards its actual goals. There have been the equivalent of poll taxes (intimidation claims in Florida 2000, remember? among other things). And the 1960s after the Act were a pretty violent time in most places. Yet the civil rights movement was gaining traction at least since Jackie Robinson and certainly Brown v. Board of Education, the civil disobedience (Letters from a Selma Alabama Jail ring a bell?), Rosa Parks, etc. Having all the black folk in a town go on strike got some attention. Passing the law or near time of passing the law, you got this: As I pointed out earlier, you can't say for sure that the level of desegregation we have now is due to anything but the desegregation of schools. You throw naive white kids together with naive black kids and they quickly figure out that both are pretty cool to hang out with. I saw this (an anecdote, sure) here in San Diego in the early 1970s at a local shopping mall - white kids and black kids hanging together and having fun. Why? Because it's a military town (Navy is big, Army and Marines, too) and people from all over the country and their families get stationed here and have to live together.
I think the largest issue missing is that the civil rights act got twisted and became a monster legislation that has sprouted many ugly heads due to it being coercion in nature. The majority of people in the civil rights movement fought to repeal laws compelling segregation, the civil rights act on the other had prohibited segregation. It all boils down to what rights are, I strongly believe I have a right to my life, liberty, and property. I believe I can't be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from. All other aspects of life I have no right to, I do not have a right to food, water, shelter or any object because those things are all a measurement of wealth. The person serving food is doing so at his own economic and capital risk, since it is his property he has a right to protect it and serve whoever he feels like bigoted, or not. The people that are denied service have no right whatsoever because going into that buisness was a completely voluntary action. I absolutely believe not serving someone based on their color is wrong, but I believe an individuals rights(even a bad person) are far more important than a person being denied a product. Another reason why I also disagree with the civil rights act, is because it only protects consumers. The same bigoted person can chose not to patronize a buisness because it is ran by a person of color. Should we pass a laws similar to civil rights act to prohibit people from not being consumers?
In summation: the Civil Rights laws weren't perfect, so they were worthless. Sorry if I don't find that even slightly persuasive. BTW Denny, your "slippery slope" argument works both ways. If folks like the Pauls ran things, we wouldn't be debating desegregation - we would still be debating slavery. Their attitude that you are only acting on principle when you fail to act just doesn't cut it in real life.
I'm not at all impressed by that point. I think it is a perfect example of the problem with libertarian thinking. Paul is basically insisting on consistency, as if consistency is a required outcome, or at least the most important goal. It's neither. We don't have to be consistent. Life involves lots of compromises. If we want to have a law that allows blacks into restaurants and another law that bars guns from restaurants, we can do that. barfo
Slavery was on its way out before the Civil War. Attitudes change, and change can happen without the heavy hand of government.
That is Rands point 9 10ths of the law is good, but 1 part is not. It would have been less costly to change the bill before it passed than infringe upon peoples private property rights. Sorry for Rand trying to take the oath of office seriously, and uphold the Constitution. Also if people like the Pauls ran the country slavery would have ended much sooner in this country, and we would have not fought a needless costly civil war.
I agree with this author. It is a good thing for the country that Rand Paul is running and expressing his views (it would be even better if he was more upfront and less weaselly about his views). I think it would be a bad thing for the country if he got elected to anything higher than dogcatcher, but I think it is great we have the opportunity to discuss his peculiar worldview. Actually, I guess he'd be a disaster as dogcatcher too. He'd insist that all dogs must be free and not fenced in or tied up or kept on a leash. barfo
Sometimes people aren't willing to wait around for things to change by themselves. Slavery might have been "on the way out", but how long before it was completely gone in the absence of legal (and military) intervention? Another 50 or 100 years? I guess that's ok, if you aren't a slave? barfo
All this makes a solid case FOR Federal Government overseeing state and local governments, which as you point out are often racist and illegal in their actions. Without Bobby Kennedy sending Federal troops to stop southern "local law officers" and their fellow Klan members from attacking and lynching blacks back in the sixties, the Civil Rights movement would have never amounted to anything but a pipedream. Further, your premise that free enterprise created Black Wall Street ignores the fact that local racists unrestrained by Federal officers destroyed it. It is this very problem with local and state government being so corrupt and often acting illegally and against it's own people that has caused the Federal Government to reluctantly take a more active role in protecting citizens on a local level when their local government does not. BTW, Black Wall Street was inherently racist in all it's functions. For more on BWS: http://www.blackwallstreet.freeservers.com/The Story.htm Seems racist and totally inaccurate for you to imply only black people shine shoes. I think most people misread the Jackie Robinson result. Back when American professional athletes were all white, they were viewed as heroes and respected whether they deserved it or not. Now that sports are integrated, athletes are viewed more like pets, or possessions, or "boy"s, and criticized for each and every personal fault they show. Progress? Somehow I don't think so.
Slavery was not "on it's way out", but no matter as the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves by any stretch of the imagination. It was fought to prevent the secession of the south from the union. As for attitudes changing, I guess you don't travel the south very much.
2nd Amendment already guarantees the right to bear arms, so it's a moot point. If a restaurant here in Beautiful Central Oregon posted a "NO FIREARMS" sign at the door, they'd be broke in a month.
Please explain how. Denny claims the founding fathers as libertarians, and we know that some of them were slave owners. But be that as it may, how would the Pauls have ended slavery, had they been transported back in time to the early 1800s? How would their philosophy of everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their own property have ended slavery, given that slaves were in fact considered property at the time? barfo
Your summation is a strawman. Paul said that if he weren't able to persuade people to modify the civil rights act, he'd have supported it. Other posts that I'll respond to will address your second point.
