Lord Mhoram wrote: Why not? I don't mean to sound inane, but the Constitutionality here is a major issue. Surely you have an argument of some kind.
It's my opinion that the federal government has no right to dictate what you do with your private property, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. But there's that damn commerce clause, and a history of SCOTUS decisions which give it virtually unlimited power to meddle in the private sector. In order to avoid debating that entire issue, I thought an honest, "I don't know" would be sufficient. I don't know the legal history of how the CRA came into being, or what arguments were used to make sure it was Constitutional. Just because you think it's a major issue doesn't mean I have an argument. Please be satisfied with a frank admission of my ignorance--or you can enlighten me with your own research. I'll be happy to read your argument.
Lord Mhoram wrote: Subjective or not, the government in practice just has that right (to intervene to stop racial discrimination). We've given it to them, as evidenced by our history since the civil rights movement.
Well, no argument there ... that is, if we ignore the argument. I'm well aware that we've ceded to the government this power. But whether or not it
should have that power is the heart of the debate. We'll probably never agree on that. I have little hope of turning you into a Libertarian.
Lord Mhoram wrote: Okay, so the legality of this discussion of a...law has no relevance for you? That makes sense.
Legality is something argued by lawyers, and interpretted by judges. I'm neither. So you're right: the legality has zero relevance to me, since I'm arguing against the rationale for the law.
Lord Mhoram wrote: I don't see why principles should be separate from pragmatic implementation in any interesting way.
Well, I gave an example. The CRA violates my conservative principles of limited government, but I still would have voted for it and I think it has achieved immeasurable good. That's not interesting? It provides my ideological opponents with all the ammunition they need to point out that my principles can be deficient in practice--in very important ways. I thought you'd consider that an interesting admission.
Lord Mhoram wrote: We want our principles to guide our actions, and even when we sacrifice our principles for the sake of compromise, we're still enacting the principle of the need to sacrifice for, say, some greater good.
Okay, sure. I do have higher principles than my conception of the perfect government. But in terms of arguing the CRA from the perspective of Libertarian vs liberal ideology, for instance, I'm required to step outside of my own political perspective to achive a greater good. You are not required to make this move, because your pragmatic position already aligns with your principles. So this particular cognitive dissonance isn't something you have to acknowledge or deal with. I deal with it by noting that there are different ways to achieve a goal, depending on the time and place. That's a pragmatic issue. In the 60s, perhaps a purely Libertarian principle couldn't have worked. Now, I think it could. That temporal and situational change represents a disconnect of principle and practice.
But even my "higher principle" is something that can be violated if it needs to be. Just to imagine the most radical scenario possible ... let's suppose that Obama gets assassinated, and blacks decide it's time for a race war to get revenge. In that case, I could conceive of a situation where discrimination would once again have a place in our culture.
No principle is absolute. The pragmatics of survival is the ultimate "principle."
Lord Mhoram wrote: The principle remains the same: discrimination is wrong. The method is what's at question: to outlaw, or not?
Again, I'm unclear on the implications of your argument. We have
already outlawed discrimination. That much is clear. Are you suggesting we
repeal those laws? Or what? Why is "to outlaw, or not?" even a question?
It's a question because we're debating the logic and rationale of the CRA. I'm not suggesting that we repeal anything. This is a purely hypothetical discussion brought on by the fact that Paul has a certain position, which is subject to potential distortion, and discussing the rationales behind this issue is a means of elucidating his position to avoid distortion.
Lord Mhoram wrote: We all agree that experientially we were justified in enacting such legislation. The question now is if our experience has changed meaningfully enough to change those laws? I think not. I think the laws are important buttresses against discriminatory practices that are not only ingrained in the American experience (you agree that discrimination exists today), but are also fundamentally part of human nature (like murdering, raping, etc.).
Just because something is "part of human nature" doesn't mean that all humans are guilty of it. I don't believe that society as a whole should have its freedom limited for a small percentage of assholes. For instance, just because some people murder is no reason to take away my right to bear arms.
Lord Mhoram wrote: Furthermore, there has been no negative fallout from the legislation that would mandate changing it or repealing it.
Well, now we have to talk about that "nonexistent" distinction between principle and practice. Yes, you're right that businesses haven't been harmed by allowing blacks to shop. But that's a pragmatic point. In terms of principle, the concept of limited government and personal freedom has been harmed quite a bit. The more the government does for us, the more we get arguments like:
"Subjective or not, the government in practice just has that right ... We've given it to them ..." We begin to think that something is okay merely because that's the way we've always done it. But that's exactly how something like slavery becomes an accepted practice! If we don't distinguish between principles/practice, the way things are done in practice start to
become the principle.
And so every step the government takes in limiting our freedom becomes accepted as "that's just the way we do it," even when there's another way to do it! We start to think that the government is
justified in doing it, simply because it does it. Surely you can see that's a circular argument (or maybe not, given your quote above).
The problem started with the government. We formed a "Land of the Free" which nevertheless allowed slavery to be legal. The CRA (not to mention the Civil War) was necessary to correct that
government problem, that institutionalized contradiction that never should have happened. If slavery was illegal from the beginning, and we never had to fight a war that pitted brother against brother, state against state, perhaps we would never have had a society that required the government intervention in its self-caused problem. Perhaps if we had all been free from the beginning, we wouldn't have to violate freedom in order to correct that contradiction.
I don't really expect you to see the harm in piecemeal acceptance of government control. Again, you're not a Libertarian. But personally I see grave harm in increasing control over a society that is itself increasingly open-minded. The government and the people are moving in opposite directions. As we get richer, the government sees MORE need for economic aid (control). As we get more open-minded, the government enforces more and more laws to enact "social justice." It's like America is growing into an adult while our government treats us more and more like children. I don't want the government to tell me what to do and take care of me. I want the promise of our Founders. In today's society, we have the ability to be that country even more than they did. And yet, for some reason, people who believe as you see ever increasing need for government control. In my opinion, that "some reason" is based on nothing more than what you offered above:
"the government in practice just has that right ... We've given it to them ..."
I think that kind of complacency is dangerous to freedom.
Lord Mhoram wrote: It's just more hidden so we don't know when we're giving our money to racists.
I'm not sure you appreciate the enormous extent to which the CRA is responsible for that hiddenness.
Of course I recognize it. I'm
blaming the CRA for it. As I've said: I would rather know who the racists are so I can choose not to give them my money.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.