Last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, I challenged Kentucky political hopeful Rand Paul to a debate. Mr. Paul has made headlines for his opposition to certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark legislation that outlawed racial segregation in voter registration, schools, workplaces and other public accommodations like hotels and restaurants.
The Civil Rights Act heralded the modern era of our nation's history; one in which race-based discrimination, on paper at least, was relegated to our history texts. It is a law that also doubles as a calling to our better nature.
In one sense I have got to hand it to Rand Paul. It takes some serious guts to publicly challenge such a cherished pillar of the modern American identity. Unfortunately, in the political arena, guts need to be tempered with brains as well.
Mr. Paul says that he supports all efforts to fight government-sponsored discrimination. He has no quibble with the end of segregation in public schools, for example, or in public-sector hiring. His only dispute is with desegregation of the private sector -- the local merchants and lunch-counter operators whose speech rights were apparently encroached on by an overzealous federal government. In Mr. Paul's worldview, the free hand of the marketplace would have eventually forced most of those businesses to serve black folk anyway, because it was in their economic interest to do so.
The problem is that it never quite worked that way. Even after Jim Crow laws were overturned, those business establishments that bucked the system and served an integrated clientele faced threats, coercion and violence from a ruling class -- a group made up not merely of local thugs, but of fellow business owners and, far too often, the local police force itself.
This was the point of federal intervention in the first place. The states and municipalities on the front lines of the desegregation movements were themselves the most likely to be institutionally corrupted by the cancer of racism. A relatively more objective outside party -- the federal government -- would have to serve as a mediating force.
Of course the story went far beyond potential corruption. Let's assume that we are dealing with a completely race-neutral local political environment. Society still relies on government enforcement -- a police force -- to enforce its laws. In Mr. Paul's world, a white gas station owner would be completely within his rights to deny service to a black family traveling on a holiday road trip. But say the family took a stand -- refusing to leave the station until they were allowed to fill their tank or buy a snack. Do we honestly accept that it is the role of the municipal police force to step in and protect the owner's "right" to discriminate based on race? That they should arrest and charge the offending family for trespassing?
The fact is that the world is far more complex than Mr. Paul's theoretical college dorm exercises would suggest.
Does Rand Paul defend, for example, the right of banks to not extend mortgages to people of color? Even in communities without other banks to compete? Should the government never be allowed regulate private business? Even for health and safety reasons? Honestly, I don't think Mr. Paul has thought these positions through very deeply. That is is why I have challenged him to study up on the subject and discuss them publicly.
By winning his party's nomination to represent them in the Senate, Rand Paul has signed on to the big leagues. I say congratulations -- let's talk about the issues. It is time for a debate.
Originally Posted at Change.Org
Rand Paul: Libertarian Extraordinaire?
Rand Paul and the Perils of Textbook Libertarianism
So Far This Year, 'Nice' Is Not-So-Good
Rand Paul bucks recent trend against political dynasties
1 Take the U.S. to court for crimes against humanity on African- Americans
2. Also go to the U.N. and the Hague and access damages for 391 years of racist treatment
3. Partition off land on U.S. soil for the development of an Independent Black Commonwealth nation/state (and Liberia doesn't count as reparations)
4. Have the right to develop a military to defend our new homeland
5. because we recognize that people do not control their own affairs, who do not control the institutions by which they participate in public life are open to disenfranchisement, marginalization, and genocide
If Rand Paul , Jon Stossel and other liberterians and conservatives want to repeal the most important part of the 1964 Civil Rights then it won't be pleasant for any American. If it weren't for organizations like SCLC, NAACP, and people like Dr. King, and allies of all races and creeds. I would'nt be able to go into a Target, Wal- Mart much less buy a house in a neighborhood I choose to live in. Because I respect the sacrifice made in lives, mental and physical harm and in many cases dreams and careers just to have basic rights.
I have no idea what Stossel believes, but Paul is on record as NOT advocating repeal or any other change of the 1964 CRA, including Title 2. What he said (and has since been repeatedly misquoted for saying) was that had he been present when the language of Title 2 was written he would have tried to explore achieving a better (in his opinion) balance between the competing rights involved rather than having Title 2 make the right not to be privately discriminated against absolutely override the right of a private business owner to act reprehensibly.
The First Amendment legalizes speech which may be abhorrent (as long as it does not threaten public safety) in the belief that freedom of expression is more important than protecting others from exposure to unpleasantness - exactly the opposite position from that taken in Title 2. That is not an inherent contradiction, but should help even someone who doesn't have any qualms about the opposite position of Title 2 understand how others might differ in that opinion.
Mr. Jealous makes an excellent case for Title 2 (he did on Maddow as well). I hope he and Paul do get to debate, because airing their differences is much more likely to help resolve them than is retiring to opposite corners and calling names (not that either has done that, but some of their supporters have).
Mr. Jealous is spot on in his characterization of Paul's stance: "Mr. Paul's theoretical college dorm exercises."
Business operates under the auspices of both local, state, and Federal government. Protections, licensing, and tax benefits afforded to them, are granted by these bodies. Owning a business is not a right. It's a priviledge granted by obtaining licensing and inspections (when applicable). Based on Rand's argument, the freedom to deny service to particular individuals would be within the business' rights. But what he fails to realize is that food safety, chemical safety, and product guidelines would also be up for debate.
We are now on dangerous ground.
If McDonalds decides that the FDA should no longer be able to infringe on their right to sell diseased beef then, based on Paul's argument, the Government's reach should be limited to dictate how they do business.
Think this analogy is far off? Not so fast. Rand is the same person that was quoted as calling the Gulf oil spill an "accident" and admonished the President for his tone against BP as a company.
This is no coincidence. Paul advocates the rights of business across the board, even at the expense of the consuming public. This is not isolated, nor is it a mistake. This is fairly common and it has a modern day name. Deregulation.
I hope this airing of their true ideals will convince those who have been swayed by the sound bites to realize how unAmerican they are.
Honesty and idealism in a politician is one thing, intellectual naivety is another.
And yes, wakos are entitled to representation like anybody else. However, if I watch the news, I do not want to see an episode of the Wacky Races.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oknvBclbZMI&fe
The fact is that the world is far more complex than the dogma you choose never to question.
A valid point of view should never be stifled with reflexive accusations. Free discussion will build a better America.
the power of the Federal Govt. Period. When he was asked if he would have voted
for the Civil Rights Act, he said.... YES. So what's the problem....? Isn't this really
about the fear that the Dems are beginning to feel now that the "Tea Party" movement
has had some recent success? And isn't part of that fear their own disillusionment
with THEIR political party? People are waking up to the fact that "Rome is burning" and
ALL we get from MOST of our elected officials - Republican AND Democrat - is finger
pointing and platitudes. The natives are restless.....and the pot is beginning to boil..
I'm sure I'll get more in depth on this as time goes on and I get replies, but let me just start off by saying that, quite simply: you can no more outlaw racism than you can outlaw CO2, and so the argument is moot. It is society's responsibility to raise a more tolerant generation, not our government's. They are there to represent us, and so we ought to tell them to look into the racist effects of laws like the minimum wage rather than make war on a Libertarian that was caught in the Lion's den, so to speak. I'd love to go on Maddow's show and defend the Libertarian and Classical Liberal views, because they have great appeal to those who really do care about everyone having the opportunity to make a good life for themselves, and be free from many of the worlds evils.
It is society's responsibility to raise a more tolerant generation, not our government's.
-------
And this process is greatly facilitated by actions like the civil rights act that expose insular groups to each other so that they have a chance to get to know each other and become a more tolerant generation.
than the American Public has in itself. And we will pay dearly for that lack of faith...
Libertarians do not believe that things will turn out well in the end thanks to an invisible hand, we simply recognize that there is an invisible hand and we seek to work in harmony with it, or even take advantage of it to advance society. There will always be problems, and there might even always be racists, no one knows - but Libertarians believe that you cannot legislate morality, and you cannot truly ban anything - there will always be dissent, and as long as we make more laws, there will be more dissent.
The problem with democracy in a multi cultural and multi racial society is of course the tendency of the majority to abuse the minority. In this country we enslaved them for hundreds of years, and then treated them like crap for another 150 years.
It is so darned difficult for countries with religious conflict or tribalism to progress to a functioning democracy that restrains the abuses of the majority. Look at the difficulties of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (and Israel for that matter) to have a functioning democracy where the differences of religion and ethnicity come into play. The majority cannot accept that having power doesn't confer privileges to have more than the minority gets. They seek to deny justice to the minority just because they can - they have the numbers.
In our system, we worked this out eventually. We have gradually expanded protection for the minorities. We have accepted that there are not only limits on government, but limits on the exercise of power by the majority. They may not deprive anyone of due process of law, of property or freedom or any of the civil rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the penumbra emanating from those enumerated rights.
I don't question others passion for human rights, I simply question the methods they use, such as world banks, minimum wages, free trade agreements, the military, and any laws which infringe on the personal property or free speech rights of American citizens.
People like Rand and Milton Friedman are no better at honest, empirical thinking than Karl Marx was.
There is a big difference between the armed robber and the payday loan shark. Nobody forces you to deal with the loan shark whereas the robber leaves you no option.
That said The 1964 Civil Rights act was one of America's finest hours!
We tried to raise people up to an equal level!
A woman in her third trimester begins to bleed. The bleeding continues from some time and she goes to the nearest ER.
The bleeding increases and becomes a serious concern to the ER physicians. She appears to be Caucasian of European origin (that includes pretty much everybody in Europe, Eastern Europe, the Mid East, and beyond.
As sonograms, and MRI’s and other tests and examinations move forward she continues to bleed heavily. Surgery, even to the point of removal of the uterus seems increasingly probable.
Her blood is drawn for testing and for typing (A, B, Rh etc and an antibody screen). As a result of the blood typing it is discovered that her blood type beyond just A, B and Rh indicates that she is most likely, Negro, Arab, Jewish, Mediterranean, Mideastern, other (pick one).
The hospital, as a matter of policy, refuses to serve people of that genetic origin.
It then decides it will not continue her treatment based on the statistical probability, indicated by her antibody typing becasue they do not allow her “type,” as in genetic type, in their hospital.
She is in a privately owned for profit hospital.
Can they kick her to the curb?
If Dr. Paul says no, then he needs to explain, why they can’t.
Yes, it is possible to determine your race, even sub race, as a statistical probability, by identifying specific proteins on your red blood cells.
Amen.
And isn't that exactly what American Democracy is, or at least aspires to be,. Isn't that what American Justice aspires to be, what we all want it to be.
We don't need to "take our country BACK" -
WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY FORWARD so that our aspirations and ideals are more nearly achieved.
The Republican's mantra of "we need to start over" is retrograde. Back is the worst thing this country could ever do with the unique and wonderful gifts that the Declaration and the Constitution gave it.
You say the republicans want to go in retrograde. Yes, that is true. They want to do whatever their whim dictates without limits imposed based upon the rights of others. As Mr. Todd points out, it is at the local level that police and other officials are most abusive of their authority towards minorities. We all know this to be true. State's "rats" be damned. The tea partiers, many of them, want the privilege of the majority to deny civil society and equal justice under law to people of color or other perceived "outsiders" like homosexuals or even muslims.That is what they are all about - they don't want to be equal, they want to be in control, in power and unaccountable for how that power is utilized.
Tea partiers call Obama a Hitler. They resent when the federal government under Kennedy did not permit their governor and their police to violate the rights of education of young black students. I look at the film of those times now and I am just disgusted . The authority figures are such fools: they act out like sulky, self absorbed adolescents. This is what the retrograde rethuglicans want to go back to. And I say, LIKE HELL YOU WILL>