2010 Mid-term Election season starts in the U.S.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

Every literate American knows what Jim Crow is, and we don't need to read the legislation's specific provisions to know that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 abolished it by desegregating schools, the workplace, and other institutions. This is just basic American history of which Rand Paul, an educated man who's trying to make a career of civil service, is undoubtedly aware. Perhaps we could say that by being coy about getting rid of such legislation (before he backtracked in an effort to make himself look sane) we might say that he was pandering to the people who elected him. We might say such a thing, that is, if we applied your definition of "pandering."

[Lord Mhoram]

For the record, Paul has discussed the Act before, and here's what he said:

I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that in ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.

So there you go. He knows what he's talking about. He knows the history as I thought he did. Of course, he gets coy again:

Ha ha ha. You had to ask me the "but." I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think that there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding. And that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about, to my mind...

This was last month. His position is equivocal and unclear (since, of course, the Civil Rights Act did apply to private hiring). He is, indeed, pandering by being deliberately unclear, trying desperately to show himself to be both not a racist and not in favor of Big Government, which the Civil Rights Act undoubtedly was an example of. And everyone agrees (I would think) that the CRA was Big Government acting benevolently, but someone nominated by the Tea Party can't say that.

[Zarathustra]

desegregating schools, the workplace, and other institutions.

Well, perhaps those were the things he meant when he said he agreed with its provisions against institutionalized racism. I don't know. I'm not Rand Paul's spokesperson. I already admitted that I don't know enough about him. I said I'm not here to defend him. I just don't think there was enough evidence in the quotes given by SerScot to conclude with certainty that he was dodging the question. He addressed the question directly.

Perhaps we could say that by being coy about getting rid of such legislation (before he backtracked in an effort to make himself look sane)

Are you being coy in suggesting that Rand Paul actually supported getting rid of the legislation, and then changed his mind? Nothing in your provided link shows that. If you're going to engage in such serious innuendo, why not come out and make the accusations openly with quotes to back it up, rather than suggest it and imply that a link is proof?

we might say that he was pandering to the people who elected him. We might say such a thing, that is, if we applied your definition of "pandering."

How does my "definition of pandering" apply? I said that a politician making racially charged statements about laws which he doesn't have the knowledge to make is pandering. I think you're trying too hard to pull a "gotcha" out of this.

Do you think it's impossible to use simplistic platitudes about popular, though complicated, legislation as a means to pander?

Do you think it's possible for Rand to have a different--though valid and non-discriminatory--view of the role for the federal government in race relations for a very different time than the 1960s? Perhaps there's a more effective way to deal with the residual racism we have today besides legislation and lawsuits.

I admit it's a controversial debate ... which is why is makes sense for him to be diplomatic and careful about how he navigates the traps currently being set for him by media already determined to make Tea Partiers look racist. So much for the "nuance" they were all for in defending Obama's choice of churches and preachers.

[SerScot]

LM,

This was last month. His position is equivocal and unclear (since, of course, the Civil Rights Act did apply to private hiring). He is, indeed, pandering by being deliberately unclear, trying desperately to show himself to be both not a racist and not in favor of Big Government, which the Civil Rights Act undoubtedly was an example of. And everyone agrees (I would think) that the CRA was Big Government acting benevolently, but someone nominated by the Tea Party can't say that.

Please recognize that is an incredibly uncomfortable position for someone running for elected office to be in. I can say with 100% certianty people are going to spin Paul's support for private ownership rights to claim he's a racist. When that couldn't be further from the truth. If you doubt me look at the current "American Politics" thread over at Westeros.

If I were to make this post there I'd be shouted down as apologizing for Paul's racism too.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

Are you being coy in suggesting that Rand Paul actually supported getting rid of the legislation, and then changed his mind?

I said he was being coy about the legislation. He didn't come out clearly in favor of it nor clearly against it. Initially. My link was him coming out strongly against repealing it, which he had to do because his statements were unclear enough that they required a clear statement. I didn't say he "actually supported getting rid of the legislation." I said he was coy about it, which he was.

Do you think it's impossible to use simplistic platitudes about popular, though complicated, legislation as a means to pander?

I think we all have enough knowledge about the Civil Rights Act to have a clear position on it. I think the Civil Rights Act was unequivocally good. Perhaps he does not.

Do you think it's possible for Rand to have a different--though valid and non-discriminatory--view of the role for the federal government in race relations for a very different time than the 1960s? Perhaps there's a more effective way to deal with the residual racism we have today besides legislation and lawsuits.

Maybe. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about such things, since he hasn't offered anything of substance yet. ("Local solutions," whatever that means, doesn't count.)

I admit it's a controversial debate ... which is why is makes sense for him to be diplomatic and careful about how he navigates the traps currently being set for him by media already determined to make Tea Partiers look racist.

Indeed. And he could do that by just saying, I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But for the reasons I've mentioned, he can't very well do that, can he?

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

Please recognize that is an incredibly uncomfortable position for someone running for elected office to be in.

I don't see why. Why should it be "incredibly uncomfortable" to just say he's in favor of the Civil Rights Act? That's an elementary and almost universal proposition in political discourse in this country. That's all he needed to say. But again, as a Tea Partier elected by people who think Big Government is bad, he's backed himself into a corner. I have no sympathy, and I hope Kentucky voters see this guy for the specious blank slate that he is.

The more I think about it, the more inane and dishonest his statements on the Act look. To say the Civil Rights Act was principally about public discrimination is just historically false and contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Act.

[SerScot]

LM,

It's uncomfortable for someone who sincerely believes in limited government power and private property rights. Beliving those priniciples are important doesn't mean you endorse or agree with all the acts that can occur as a result of the freedom provided by those prinicples.

Paul is running for public office and is being painted with the "racist" brush because of his belief in limited government power and private property rights. Do you think that it is proper to call Paul a racist for believing in private property rights?

[SerScot]

DP

[Lord Mhoram]

Scot,

Why are you asking me about racism? I'm not saying Rand Paul is a racist. Rand Paul is saying he's uncomfortable with the federal government ending racism in private institutions. Fine. I think that's an abhorrent view that puts him in the same civic category as John C. Calhoun, but fine. That is, after all, one of the logical conclusions of his form of libertarianism. I don't think people are going to like that fact.

[Zarathustra]

LM, being against discrimination and racism isn't the same as being for the federal government enforcing this laudible position with guys w/guns.

I think the Left has a very clever strategy of pretending that "government solution for problem X" equals "being against problem X," and therefore anyone against the government solution must be for X. It's a fallacious argument/implication. This is an equivocation of your own. You are conflating two separate facets of a complicated issue. This is exactly the tactic which Paul was aware of while he tried to navigate the minefield.

I said he was being coy about the legislation. He didn't come out clearly in favor of it nor clearly against it. Initially. My link was him coming out strongly against repealing it, which he had to do because his statements were unclear enough that they required a clear statement. I didn't say he "actually supported getting rid of the legislation." I said he was coy about it, which he was.

Repealing a law is a different issue than whether you would have been for it when it was passed. Recognizing the pragmatic difficulties involved in such a question is different from the matters of principle. I think you want to reduce every facet of this issue to the litmus test question, "Do you support the CRA," as if that supercedes all the other questions involved. It might be the shortcut some seek to label him a racist, but they do a disservice to the issue in taking this shortcut.

What if we were at the point historically where we didn't need the government to make us not be racists? Wouldn't it be better for the people themselves to take control of this issue--enforcing it with their freewill--rather than perpetually depending on the government to enforce it with guns? Can't the war end sometime?

Or maybe not. But it doesn't mean that Paul wants to repeal the CRA, or that he is a racist, simply because he has a better (in his mind) solution to the problem.

I don't understand why we can support the right to freedom of speech, and the right to say racist things--while being staunchly against those statements--and not simultaneously support property rights, while being staunchly against how someone exercises those rights. In my mind, the government violating the rights of citizens is even worse than citizens violating each others' rights. Both are wrong. But surely there is a better way to address a wrong than to have the government violate our rights in the name of protecting them. Perhaps a less contradictory way, too.

[SerScot]

LM,

Scot,

Why are you asking me about racism? I'm not saying Rand Paul is a racist. Rand Paul is saying he's uncomfortable with the federal government ending racism in private institutions. Fine. I think that's an abhorrent view that puts him in the same civic category as John C. Calhoun, but fine. That is, after all, one of the logical conclusions of his form of libertarianism. I don't think people are going to like that fact.

I'm asking if you think it is fair to paint Rand Paul as a racist for believing in private property rights, even while explicitly saying he would never endorse or support the choice to exclude someone on the basis of race?

You do realize the Federal Government hasn't ended Racism and sexism in all private institutions, right? Many private clubs around the Country that aren't "public accomedations" can still exclude on the basis of race or sex but choose not to do so. For example I believe Augusta National (where the Masters is played) still has no female members.

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

LM, being against discrimination and racism isn't the same as being for the federal government enforcing this laudible position with guys w/guns.

Come now. Not everything in the Civil Rights Act was enforced at gunpoint. Some of it was, and I think some of it ought to have been enforced in that way. Like school desegregation for example. But much of it was simply legalistic. I'm not sure why one would be against such federal stipulations. They are, after all, the consequence of the equal protection clause.

It's a fallacious argument/implication.

It would be, if that's what I'm arguing. I've said all along that Paul is against federal enforcement of desegregation in the private sphere. This is what he has said. Or rather, he has, again, coyly said he's unsure of such measures. Desegregation only occurred because of federal intervention, legal and forcible.

Repealing a law is a different issue than whether you would have been for it when it was passed. Recognizing the pragmatic difficulties involved in such a question is different from the matters of principle. I think you want to reduce every facet of this issue to the litmus test question, "Do you support the CRA," as if that supercedes all the other questions involved. It might be the shortcut some seek to label him a racist, but they do a disservice to the issue in taking this shortcut.

Whatever. What he said in the Politico link was that he was against repealing the Civil Rights Act. As for litmus tests, as a matter of fact I would think that support for the act should be such a measure. I wouldn't have thought so before somebody actually suggested they may not be in favor of it. Whether you are for or against the government outlaw of institutional slavery seems like a pretty important question to me.

Or maybe not. But it doesn't mean that Paul wants to repeal the CRA, or that he is a racist, simply because he has a better (in his mind) solution to the problem.

Yeah, again, not calling him a racist. As for his "better (in his mind) solution to the problem": what do you think that is? Or are you just not familiar enough with his position yet?

I don't understand why we can support the right to freedom of speech, and the right to say racist things--while being staunchly against those statements--and not simultaneously support property rights, while being staunchly against how someone exercises those rights.

Okay, so do property rights include the right to be racially exclusionary?

Scot,

I'm asking if you think it is fair to paint Rand Paul as a racist for believing in private property rights, even while explicitly saying he would never endorse or support the choice to exclude someone on the basis of race?

No. Again, why are you even asking me this?

You do realize the Federal Government hasn't ended Racism and sexism in all private institutions, right?

I am aware of that. I am also aware that the federal government ended all racist law and that the civil rights movement to which the government ceded on the Act made great strides towards civilizing our nation's racial culture. I think that's a legacy that should be celebrated, not dithered over as Paul is doing.

[Zarathustra]

Come now. Not everything in the Civil Rights Act was enforced at gunpoint.

What I mean is that *every* law is enforced at gunpoint. Try breaking one. Then try resisting arrest. See how fast the guns come out.

As for litmus tests, as a matter of fact I would think that support for the act should be such a measure. I wouldn't have thought so before somebody actually suggested they may not be in favor of it. Whether you are for or against the government outlaw of institutional slavery seems like a pretty important question to me.

We're not debating slavery. We were talking about the CRA. The fact that you wouldn't have "thought so before" regarding the CRA litmus test exposes just how much we can take for granted things we believe are obvious. I think it is good to shake up things every once in a while to see if there are any weaknesses in the foundation of our beliefs. I don't think the CRA will be repealed. But it's good to be reminded why.

As for his "better (in his mind) solution to the problem": what do you think that is? Or are you just not familiar enough with his position yet?

I said as much several times. The links I've read from you and SS have probably multiplied what I knew about him by a factor of 100.

However, I imagine he believes that something like boycotting businesses which discriminate would be all you need to end discrimination in the marketplace. If the CRA were repealed tomorrow, do you seriously think many businesses would start refusing blacks? People are prepared to boycott entire states today, on just the (false) impression that they're racist. We're so hyper-sensitive about this issue, I don't think it would happen any more than it's happening now.

Okay, so do property rights include the right to be racially exclusionary?

It's an interesting question that I've never really considered. I don't see how there is any logical connection between owning and using property and being an asshole racist. What does one have to do with the other, logically speaking? Should the government be able to take your car if you use it to drive around and shout racist slurs at minorities? If property rights are tied to not performing racist actions, why not?

Why do we expect the right to walk into a private business and purchase their goods or services? Why does that particular activity carry the expectation of being treated the same, but walking down a public (tax payer funded) street no one can expect you to treat passersby the same? I can wave and smile at white people, and frown and shun black people. Why is that kind of discrimination in a public place (paid for by tax dollars) legal, but if I pay to open a business, all of a sudden I'm burdened by laws to behave as if I like everyone equally? What is the logical justification for this expectation?

Again, this is an area that seems so obvious, many of us probably don't even bother having an answer to these questions. I certainly don't have a ready answer. Maybe you do. But I see no reason to make property rights dependent upon holding certain opinions, or treating people nice. I don't believe we have absolute rights to shop. If you want to claim we have absolute right to not suffer from discrimination, then explain how I can be friendly to whites on the street and not blacks. Isn't that discrimination, too? Not treating everyone the same?

Personally, I'd like to know who the asshole racists are, so they can be exposed. I don't like the idea that I'm currently supporting businesses which are run by racists who would love to express their racism if it weren't illegal. I'd rather be able to make that decision myself, and not give them my money. But right now, our system encourages these racists to hide it, and take my money on false pretext.

[aliantha]

Why do we expect the right to walk into a private business and purchase their goods or services? Why does that particular activity carry the expectation of being treated the same, but walking down a public (tax payer funded) street no one can expect you to treat passersby the same?

So you would be okay, then, with having one set of bathrooms for white people, and another set, in the back of the store with the mops and the cleaning supplies, for black people? You would be okay with signs in your favorite department store designating the white drinking fountain and the black drinking fountain? You would be okay with allowing white people to sit anywhere they want in the restaurant, but restricting black people to a certain section?

That's why the law mandating equality in retail establishments is in place, Z. Because that's the way black people were treated in the South until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. And it could happen again if the law is repealed.

Why *shouldn't* everyone have the right to shop anywhere they want to, regardless of the color of their skin?

If you want to claim we have absolute right to not suffer from discrimination, then explain how I can be friendly to whites on the street and not blacks. Isn't that discrimination, too? Not treating everyone the same?

You bet it is.

[Zarathustra]

Ah, someone else on the Watch at midnight (depending on your time zone).

Why do we expect the right to walk into a private business and purchase their goods or services? Why does that particular activity carry the expectation of being treated the same, but walking down a public (tax payer funded) street no one can expect you to treat passersby the same?

So you would be okay, then, with having one set of bathrooms for white people, and another set, in the back of the store with the mops and the cleaning supplies, for black people? You would be okay with signs in your favorite department store designating the white drinking fountain and the black drinking fountain? You would be okay with allowing white people to sit anywhere they want in the restaurant, but restricting black people to a certain section?

I have made a clear distinction between what I'm okay with and the logic of property rights . Let's not confuse that carefully spelled out distinction right off the bat with a series of questions that completely ignores it.

Of course I wouldn't be okay with any of the things you've mentioned. But that has nothing to do with whether or not people should be jailed or have their property rights violated based on whom they allow in their bathrooms or whom they allow to use their drinking fountains. One is bad. The other is arguably worse. I'm not sure your Constitutional rights are taken away by not being able to drink at a water fountain that just happens to be someone else's private property. I think it makes you an asshole if you discriminate like this, but I'm not sure it justifies you being thrown into jail or having your property rights infringed. Being an asshole shouldn't be illegal. I'm uncertain about the logical leap from "I believe this is bad" to "the government should stop it with guns."

That's why the law mandating equality in retail establishments is in place, Z. Because that's the way black people were treated in the South until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. And it could happen again if the law is repealed.

I'm not ignorant of our history. But I seriously doubt it could happen again. We're a different country now.

Do you think slavery would start again if we didn't have laws against it? You think the entire South would build its economy on slavery? No way. Some things are in the past because we've given them up, not merely because Uncle Sam threatens us.

Why *shouldn't* everyone have the right to shop anywhere they want to, regardless of the color of their skin?

Why *shouldn't* everyone have the right to walk down a sidewalk and be greeted with the same warm smile regardless of the color of their skin? What's the difference between these two activities? Why are they so different that one is a fundamental right and the other is just an issue of manners?

[Avatar]

Because one involves the arbitrary limitation of your freedom/movement/activity, the other doesn't.

--A

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

Why do we expect the right to walk into a private business and purchase their goods or services? Why does that particular activity carry the expectation of being treated the same, but walking down a public (tax payer funded) street no one can expect you to treat passersby the same?

So you would be okay, then, with having one set of bathrooms for white people, and another set, in the back of the store with the mops and the cleaning supplies, for black people? You would be okay with signs in your favorite department store designating the white drinking fountain and the black drinking fountain? You would be okay with allowing white people to sit anywhere they want in the restaurant, but restricting black people to a certain section?

That's why the law mandating equality in retail establishments is in place, Z. Because that's the way black people were treated in the South until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. And it could happen again if the law is repealed.

Why *shouldn't* everyone have the right to shop anywhere they want to, regardless of the color of their skin?

If you want to claim we have absolute right to not suffer from discrimination, then explain how I can be friendly to whites on the street and not blacks. Isn't that discrimination, too? Not treating everyone the same?

You bet it is.

Allow me to present this in another fashion. Should Government have the power to force people to be nice? If a cashier at a department store is rude to you should you be able to call the police or sue the Department store for civil damages because of the rude behavior?

I'm not saying the rude behavior is in any way justifiable. I'm asking whether the State should have the power to stop the rude behavior via force or via a civil action through the Courts?

If you tell all of your friends about the rude behavior and they stop shopping there will the store want to continue to allow the cashier to engage in the rude behavior?

The final factor to remember about what Rand Paul is saying is he applauded the end of "institutional racism" that means the store, after the CRA couldn't call the police and have someone removed because they are black, asian, or hispanic without some more specific cause like shoplifting. Thus, if a store attempted to keep certain people out based upon skin color they couldn't resort to "State force" to have these individuals removed because the State couldn't endorse their behavior by removing them.

That is precisely how racially based covenants on real property were invalidated. Some property still has those covenants, however, the covenants are unenforceable by the State despite their continued existence.

[Lord Mhoram]

Wait a second. Segregation wasn't about individuals using their Constitutional property rights. It was a cultural and legal system set up to exclude a racial class of people from white institutions. Justifying that exclusion did, indeed, have a Constitutional basis: Plessy v. Ferguson's (1896) "separate but equal" doctrine. Both legally and culturally "separate but equal" has no weight in our society anymore. Brown (1954) famously said: "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Legal racial segregation is ipso facto unconstitutional. Remember that this was challenged in the case of private businesses' right to "choose" their customers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) -- SCOTUS ruled that they could not do so in violation of the CRA because of Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce. You don't have to wave at people or be nice to them, but once you start providing services on the basis of racial exclusion, you are breaking the law of the land.

[SerScot]

LM,

Wait a second. Segregation wasn't about individuals using their Constitutional property rights. It was a cultural and legal system set up to exclude a racial class of people from white institutions. Justifying that exclusion did, indeed, have a Constitutional basis: Plessy v. Ferguson's (1896) "separate but equal" doctrine. Both legally and culturally "separate but equal" has no weight in our society anymore. Brown (1954) famously said: "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." Legal racial segregation is ipso facto unconstitutional. Remember that this was challenged in the case of private businesses' right to "choose" their customers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) -- SCOTUS ruled that they could not do so in violation of the CRA because of Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce. You don't have to wave at people or be nice to them, but once you start providing services on the basis of racial exclusion, you are breaking the law of the land.

Yes. I understand that. What I'm talking about is a different method of achieving the same end, the end of legally enforced and endorsed segregation. The public accomidation ruling in Heart of Atlanta didn't address private covenants placed upon land that run with land. It was a later holding regarding a park in Georgia that established it was Unconstitutional for public authorities to enforce racially based covenants. What I'm suggesting is that the same line of reasoning would apply to private property owners when they seek to eject someone from their property based solely on the race of that individual.

I suppose the hard part is that people do have a right to eject people from their property. Asking an individual police officer or sheriff's deputies to determine the motives for a private property owners desire to eject someone from their property is a bit much.

[Zarathustra]

Wait a second. Segregation wasn't about individuals using their Constitutional property rights.

Okay, that's a fair point. But I was answering your question: "Okay, so do property rights include the right to be racially exclusionary?"

We're talking about several different things here. The history of rights. The logic of rights. The pragmatic implications of rights. Etc.

Because one involves the arbitrary limitation of your freedom/movement/activity, the other doesn't.

That's a good answer. I'm sure there are other good answers. I wasn't suggesting that there is no difference between shopping and smiling. I'm just saying that it isn't clear why one involves a fundamental right, while the other is merely manners. Both are discrimination.

So let's look at your answer: limiting your freedom/movement/activity. What if the shop owner is fed up wiht a certain type of people in his store, and he realizes he can't discriminate without prosecution, so he closes his store and sells his business. Then everyone has their freedom/movement/activity limited because they can no longer go to this store like they could before. Does the shop owner have an obligation to keep his store open so that people still retain the option of shopping there? Of course not. So the problem isn't really this limit on freedom you're seeing. We do not have obligations to make shopping options available to people. Therefore we can wipe this "common denominator" off the table, and we're only left with the discrimination, just like the sidewalk smile example I gave before. There's no longer this difference you noted.

Care to list another difference?

I think the whole idea of forcing shop owners to serve you is kind of bizarre. If there was a store run by black people, and they were racist enough to not want whites in their store, why the hell would I want to give them my money?!? Why do we think it is noble to fight for the right to give our money to racist store owners? I would much rather prefer to know who the racists are, and not support them with my business.