We’re taking a very short break from evolution, cats, and atheism to follow America as it gets taken over by bigoted morons who, reflexively, elect other bigoted morons to public office.
Here’s the new face of racism in America: Rand Paul, Tea Party (Republican) nominee for Kentucky’s senate seat. His tactic: pay lip service to Dr. King while claiming that business owners have the right to discriminate on the basis of race. After all, that’s just free speech for racists.
If you lived in America during the 1960s, and witnessed the long struggle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you’ll remember that racists used all sorts of code words for segregation. Back then it was “states’ rights.” Now it’s “free speech.”
“I abhor racism. I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant.” Bad business decision?
And here’s a transcript of part of Paul’s interview with Rachel Maddow yesterday:
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that ‘We don’t serve black people?’
Paul: I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. Butdo discriminate.But I think what’s important in this debate is not getting into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question ‘What about freedom of speech?’ Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it…
Maddow:… How about desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says ‘well no, we don’t want to have guns in here’ the bar says ‘we don’t want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.’ Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion…
Maddow: Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen’s lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul.
The kind of people who give assholes a bad name!
Fucking low-life libertarian.
This is consistent with Libertarianism. Nothing, and I mean nothing, supersedes “property rights”, which Libertarians take as prior to all other considerations.
The trouble is, of course, that “property rights” do not have some objective reality. They are a social construction and require a society to enforce. That same society can obviously do this in any way it wants, including telling you that you have to allow people of any color to sit in your restaurant.
Yeah, I’ve had the same argument with libertarians. Basically those who hold this position, which seems to be common, don’t give a shit about human rights, except their own.
I mock Libertarians as “the Petty Kings of Suburbia.” Each wishes to be Lord and Master of his 1/4 acre while failing to see that without government to protect him, he’d be somone’s slave, if not dead.
Anymore I just tell them to move to the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia. No taxes. No government intervention. Just the free market in a free society.
This is why Frank Zappa absolutely rejected the offer by the libertarian party in the 80’s to run for office – he was somewhat libertarian but he was astonished that they wouldn’t take a moral stand on civil rights issues.
There is also the phony “viewpoint discrimination” to contend with.
For example, our favorite propaganda organization the Discovery Institute can lie about evolution; that’s free speech.
However, criticize “intelligent design” and that’s viewpoint discrimination.
Sort of makes me long for the good old days when we shouted “Police brutality!” as we were getting bonked on the head. Kids today, bunch of softies.
Racism via privatized exclusion.
What a waste. His dodging the simple question by contending that the question of discrimination also covers whether an owner can refuse someone carrying a firearm is bogus.
Civil rights has to do with non-discrimination w.r.t. what is given, not chosen.
Being blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbian is not a choice. Carrying a gun is.
I noticed that The Democratic Senate primary garnered more than 500,000 votes, but the Republican primary only drew 350,000. If this holds in November, the Democrat will gain this seat in the Senate.
If the media focus Paul to clarify his views on private rights and civil liberties, he’s sunk and the Tea Party is exposed for what it is.
Besides, what’s the point of carrying your gun into a restaurant unless there are blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbians to intimidate?
In some places it intimidates the cook and increases the portions. Unfortunately these are not the places where a larger serving is beneficial.
Why is it that when I tell my liberal friends I’m against a wellfare state, they automatically assume I don’t care about the plight of poor people? Or being against a state or federal unemployment program means I don’t care about people who lose their jobs?
Making state enforced laws isn’t the answer to every injustice, and (in this case)simply pointing that out doesn’t make you a bigot or racist. You seem to be tossing that term out there rather loosely, and I consider it a pretty harsh accusation. Maybe Rand Paul is a racist, go and dig up some real evidence, and don’t waste my time with this interview, which is clearly just Rand being consistent in his view on the proper role of government in society.
Em…yes, being against any kind of social support for people who can’t find jobs means you are uncaring.
No questioning that.
Are we talking about support, or encouragement?
I am talking about the real world. In the libertarian imaginary world, of course, all people out of jobs are just useless bums, and so supporting and encouraging are synonymous.
(Of course this doesn’t apply to the libertarians themselves when they can’t work because of, say, Asperger’s and depression).
This clearly illustrates the moral problem and anti-social proclivities of libertarianism. I’m not sure what degree of cognitive dissonance is required to say that one ‘cares about the plight of the poor’ on one hand, but take the position that society shouldn’t do anything to collectively ameliorate that problem. To me it seems pretty handy to be able to claim to care about the unfortunate but then appeal to some esoteric principles for the rationale for doing nothing.
Libertarians and other like-minded individuals should just come out and honestly say that the don’t give a damn about their fellow citizens.
You feel concerned that too many americans are overweight … quick, what do you do? Write to your congressman, try and get soft drinks outlawed? Or do you start an obese-awareness campaign, maybe become a personal trainer, write a book, sponsor some kids to join a soccer league?
There are alternatives to passing laws to correct every injustice, and I just happen to actually believe that, not just pay it lip service.
The government isn’t the only way to get things done, and having that opinion doesn’t make me uncaring. It just means I don’t speed dial my representative every-time I see an something I disagree with in the world. If you see an injustice, you should try and do something about it yourself, not pass the buck off to your elected officials and your fellow citizens.
Rubbish. No one asked you to call your politician for every problem. But when you oppose welfare and at the same time you claim you care about those less lucky than you, it makes you a hypocrite.
And when welfare only prolongs the problem?
Any evidence of that Alan?Or are you making it up?
By the way are you still on Medicaid?
When a people lose their jobs, their families face immediate danger of becoming homeless. As a culture, we want there to be a safety net so that people don’t die out on the street. What institution other than the government can we count on to provide that safety net?
BTW, I support a universal healthcare system that includes doctors educating patients on healthy lifestyle choices like exercise and healthy diet. People should have accesses to the resources they need to live a healthy lifestyle, be that education on food choice or temporary financial support while between jobs.
@ JonaSmith
That’s a typical straw man and you surely know it. Your argument is as real as all those self-actuated and socially conscious concerned libertarians that are out there raising money for the poor, volunteering, mentoring, etc.
Ideological consistency is not a sufficient defense as to why someone doesn’t want the govt to provide social services. It’s an old aphorism – ideologies don’t form people’s opinions, people seek out ideologies that conform to their own moral consciousness. Thus, those who are completely self-centered and lacking in compassion for others, are generally narcissistic and are absolutely penurious with regard to society – they adopt the ideology of libertarianism.
They subsequently hide from judgment behind ideological consistency.
We have a winner! Thank you.
“The government isn’t the only way to get things done”
Perhaps, but the problem with libertarianism is that it chooses to pretend that government isn’t even an acceptable way to get things done.
This is mostly unfair to political ideologies in general and libertarianism specifically.
Yes, in my analysis political ideologies are mostly untested props that are nearly functionally equivalent to religion. But modern such are mostly good faith constructs that are intended to benefit society. This isn’t the case for religions, which are intended to empower and benefit a class (priests).
So if libertarianism is a social construct, does it have a moral problem and a paradoxical inherent anti-social proclivity? I don’t think that is in evidence. What it does have is individuals that demonstrate that.
But if you want to compare levels of fundamentalists outside or religion, we should compare with other political ideologies. And I don’t think any of those can come up to the levels of communism.
This also looks nonfactual to me. Libertarians propose, I believe, that problems will resolve itself with minimal government and that involvement can amplify and delay resolution of a problem. That is not cognitive dissonance (nor immorality at this point).
Their problem, practical and moral, is if their ideology in practice doesn’t work out best. But they share that problem with other ideologies.
And when it happens remaining ideologists are happily pointing out this. Mostly, I believe, because it draws attention from their own problems and mistakes, not because they believe their politics in practice is always the superior. 🙁
Also, and I missed this, my comment seems to be a response to Dr Benway as well.
To wit, ideological constructs aren’t necessary constructs to “hide from judgment behind ideological consistency”. (For example, it would be easier for the individual, if not a group, to not have an ideology or politics at all.)
Thinking further, more severely than my previous analysis is that the proposition of Dr Benway is conspirationism. Conspiracies are as a general idea the most unlikely explanation for an event.
[“- Thx for playing!”, in other words. :-D]
Uh, I once saw a sign posted on a restaurant door in Davie, FL that said:
“The law requires us to, but we would prefer not to serve coloreds.”
Swear to FSM. Like, in the past 5 years. Saying race discrimination is “philosophical” is bigoted and wrong, a bald-faced lie.
“…which is clearly just Rand being consistent in his view on the proper role of government in society.”
Is it “clearly” this? Or is this statement allegedly about political philosophy mere pretext for discrimination and bigotry. (be it Paul’s or that of his intended voters.) Because disguising racism as political theorizing certainly has a long history in the USA. (see, e.g., “states’ rights.”) Either way, anyone who holds such views has no business holding any office in government, so this discussion is useful to the extent that it ruins Paul’s chances of electoral success.
A hypothesis: conservatives don’t believe something in society is real unless it’s written down as a law. So, to them, affirmative action is racism because it’s law, but a whole society oppressing its minorities, however brutally or systematically, isn’t racism if there’s no law stating it explicitly. To them, custom has no power to compel–it is an illusion.
I can’t decide whether this behavior is just a lie all conservatives agree to promulgate or whether they all have the exact same ideological blinder.
Good point, but it’s probably just ends justifying the means. Conservatives will use whatever justification they can think of to “defend” their policy positions.
For instance, it is very clearly against the law to eavesdrop on American citizens without a warrant (they even have 72 hours to do it before the warrant is issued), but Bush/Cheney did it anyway.
Another, judicial activism is okay when its conservative (oxymoron intended), but anathema when its liberal.
IIRC, Rand Paul actually took a stance against the Bush wiretapping. In that regard, he seems to be a somewhat consistent libertarian.
Yes, many libertarians are consistent. I suspect many of us are libertarian in many of our views. This difference is that Libertarians are perfectly OK with accepting the power of the state to protect their “property” that they just happen to control at this point in time even if that protection allows for the de facto economic oppression of those not so lucky.
Good point. Libertarianism, to me, seems like the latest phase of the corrupt power structure protecting itself by creating a philosophy to justify naked greed. Not too many libertarians among the oppressed poor.
I think you are being unnecessarily harsh here. Rand Paul seems here to being a sincere libertarian, and simply thinks that people have a broader right to be racist idiots. I don’t see any intrinsic racism in his viewpoint. I think he’s wrong, but the view isn’t necessarily racist. The claim he’s making about this being a free speech issue is also stupid but not necessarily racist. (His father Ron Paul is clearly a racist bigot and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it turned out that Rand Paul was also but this just isn’t strong evidence for it).
That is just because Rand Paul is trying to hide it.
Possibly. But there’s no way to determine that with the evidence available.
So why is the default to believe that he is being truthful and not trying to hide it? He is a politician, after all. They should, in any healthy political system, should be presumed to be liars unless proven otherwise.
I agree in general, although a sincere libertarian is about as common as a pink unicorn. Paul is being stupid with his gun analogy, but he shouldn’t be punished just for saying something stupid. (What is it we’re supposed to do with this info? Roundly criticize him until his feelings are hurt?) If he was proposing a law to overturn any granted civil right, such as the right to not be discriminated against based on race, then it’s to the ramparts.
Yes, he should be “punished” for saying something stupid.
He should not be voted for. Not elected to the position he seeks.
Saying stupid things is HOW we discover whether or not someone is worth the office they’re seeking.
Do I really have to add the caveat that I would never vote for him and neither should anybody else? But that wouldn’t be based only on saying something stupid. Actual policy positions would be first on the list.
In case you missed it, there are plenty of people who aren’t worthy of the office they seek, but that doesn’t seem to prevent them from winning.
How in the name of Darwin is advocating segregation NOT a public policy position?
Seriously, are you just that fucking stupid?
One EVALUATES candidates based on their speech. One VOTES for or against a candidate based on whether their values comport with yours and how those values would be applied by that person in the job they’re trying to get.
This guy is apparently something other than a normal, moral human being. Fine. He can believe whatever he likes. It’s a free country. But his comments ARE germane as to whether or not we HIRE HIM for an important government job.
That you don’t “get it” is WHY people who do not deserve public office are elected and re-elected.
You are part of the problem.
Kevin,
When did Rand Paul advocate segregation? My impression is that he supports outlawing segregation in public venues, but says that private areas are the concern of the owner.
I’m against segregation because not only is it plain wrong, it’s also a waste of resources. Better to accept others than to keep them apart.
@Alan Kellogg
“When did Rand Paul advocate segregation? My impression is that he supports outlawing segregation in public venues, but says that private areas are the concern of the owner.”
You sincerely can’t see how he is advocating segregation when he says that every private business in America should be free to discriminate against people based on race?? Seriously???
Saying something stupid is still his right, and not voting for him is yours. What exactly do you want to do to Paul beyond not voting for him?
All I’m saying is don’t rush anything. This guy just got his very first national exposure. I’m more than willing to give him a do-over for these first few days. His actual views and positions will come out soon.
@ Woody,
In the quote above, he dodges the lunch counter question by going on about guns. His actual straight forward words are “I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.”
He might have said something that would show that he advocates segregation, but not in these words. Produce something more damning than an artful dodge.
Yep, just within the last day Paul has claimed that Obama’s criticisms of BP are “unAmerican,” and tried to backpedal on his discrimination comments though he made them 8 years ago as well. He’s a moron, but the good thing is that he’s toast now.
Salon’s War Room has a great article onhow juvenile libertarianism is.
It’s also too early to say he’s toast. Balloon Juice has the bottom line:
“What makes this whole discussion interesting isn’t figuring out whether Paul is racist or a Randian nut job or just an idiot, what’s interesting is that the entire modern Republican party is based on opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and yet it’s taboo to oppose the Civil Rights Act openly.”
Thanks, that ties in with what IIRC Tulse said on another thread, that libertarianism was not the answer.
It does go on and claim something that isn’t in evidence, that a “government lite” can’t be enough in the modern world, where we are socialized and helped to act differently. But considering the wishes of the likes of Rand Paul, such prediction seems rather weak. 😀
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” seems like a sensible prediction for now.
Sincere libertarian? How sincere can he be if he opposes gay marriage? As Dave @ #13 says there’s no consistency (and I would add sincerity) in that stance for a libertarian.
So I think that’s a pretty good indication of his lack of sincerity as a libertarian. He’s picking and choosing.
How do you feel about him now? Still want to defend the indefensible?
Rand Paul seems here to being a sincere libertarian, and simply thinks that people have a broader right to be racist idiots.
No. He’s not just saying that people have a right to be racist, he’s sort of saying – while being evasive, trying not to say it in so many words – that people who own restaurants have a right to exclude people for racist reasons. Granted he’s not saying that very clearly in the bit quoted, but it is clear that the issue is not being racist, it is refusing service to people on racist grounds. It’s not beliefs, it’s actions. It’s important not to obfuscate this.
The view may not be inherently racist, if you conclude that the opinion is sincere and not merely pretext for racism. Given the history of the use of philosphy as a blatent cover for such racism, (see, e.g., the notion of “states’ rights”), it is reasonable to conclude that the so-called philosophy here is likewise pretext for racism. Given the fact that Paul’s views are so far outside the mainstream, the notion that he is merely hiding racism is actually a more believable conclusion than the one that says that he actually believes this libertarian philosophy that he is spouting.
Nooo, more cats, plz!
And less dogs.
Jokes aside, I don’t see how libertarians are inherently more insidious than other political belief.
As a belief it is inconsistent, because for example realpolitik would give better results, taxes and human rights have their uses. But so are most political beliefs, while libertarianism has its simplicity going for it, it will more likely be the right choice than others over time assuming the market work at all.
However it has its problem with fundamentalists, perhaps more than others. Here a putative supporter tries to make human rights out as something that we don’t need to include in a modern society. Most of the world have concluded that he couldn’t be more wrong.
“Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
Social rights indispensable for dignity would include eating in any establishment without discrimination.
Perhaps they define “everyone” differently? Maybe it means “only people who have my own skin color, or who dress in a way that doesn’t confuse me or indicate some scary religion”?
Article 22 of what? The UDHR?
Sorry, yes.
(And I’m twisting it; but really, what should hold for nations where you are still able to choose, should apply for private business as well.)
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He is opposed to gay marriage. No libertarian can consistently oppose gay marriage (at least not without opposing all state-sanctioned marriage).
There are libertarian justifications for this kind of non-discrimination. If I own a gun, even libertarians think I am not allowed to just shoot you with it whenever I want. Why? Because I would be harming you in an unjustified way. Not serving black or brown people because they are black or brown is the same kind of thing, an unjustified and unjustifiable harm to them. Sure it is not a bullet hole, but it is naive to think the only harms libertarians can (or should) care about are bullet holes.
All in all, this kind of libertarian defense is pretty weak. I suspect it is just a reductio of libertarianism. Libertarians think that the law should only recognize individuals and property. But we are humans, we have lots of values, and there is no reason for thinking the law shouldn’t recognize (some of) those values.
A consistent libertarian is a crazy, magical animal (Simpsons). That libertarians can draw their own line as to where to stop with the liberty, is a testament to how irrational humans are. (No offense to irrationality, it makes the world go round.)
I agree that most libertarians are inconsistent (as most people are). A But I have met a few self-identified libertarians who are at least as consistent as everyone else. The thing is, when you talk to these people you get a sense of just how radical libertarianism is. Libertarianism is so far away from the republican and democratic platform as to be astounding (I think the only reason libertarians tend to break republican is because they are motivated by greed and not actual liberty). Of course, that doesn’t mean that it is wrong (there are other reasons for that). But I don’t want private roads, police, fire departments, hospitals, schools, military, judges, etc. I would rather get together with my fellow citizens and make those services available to everyone and free from being pushed around by the market. Shouldn’t I have that freedom? Oh wait, that is exactly what we did.
I see it this way: if you want to be a racist on your own time (e. g., select your friends by race), that is your business.
On the other hand, a public business (even privately owned) has to obey things like pollution and zoning laws. It also benefits from publicly funded things like law enforcement and infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, etc.) So it has a public obligation beyond simple paying of taxes, and non-discrimination is one of those obligations.
Aren’t libertarians against things like pollution and zoning laws?
Many are.
I watched this segment last night with equal parts of disgust and amazement. Disgust at Paul’s message, and amazement at what a good tap dancer he is.
Tap dancer? Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers weren’t slippery.
Here’s the best simple refutation I’ve seen: “We live in an actual world where history and experience can’t be separated from philosophy.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/05/just_libertarianism_1.php
Good link.
To a degree the argument Paul is making is something like saying that I don’t like rape or murder, I just don’t believe in a police force to prevent it or a judiciary to punish the offenders. The reason we, albeit imperfectly, have equality before the law and in the society at large (in terms of public accommodations and so forth) on racial grounds in the whole of the United States is because of federal legislation that forced that to be the case.
And we know all this, it was acted out during the Civil Rights movement, which was a long long story of the Federal Government dragging its feet and getting involved only late and reluctantly and rampant injustices continuing until federal laws were enacted and enforced. Marches and sit-ins were crucial but they weren’t enough by themselves. Libertarianism was not the answer.
Good points, Ophelia. The fact that the Great Civil Rights Act had to be past is evidence that one of the main underlying premises of libertarianism — if left free from government action, people will act in a socially harmonious way — is absolutely false. In an alternate reality, where libertarianism could be a legitimate organizing principle for a society, there would have been no need for the Great Act, because the actions which led to its adoption would not have occurred. We clearly don’t live in such a reality.
Boy, wouldn’t it just frost his balls*, were he to stop for BBQ** somewhere on the campaign trail and be refused.
*Homage to an old pal (who never refused anybody)’s favorite expression.
**I understand that in parts of KY the default BBW is goat (which our moderator and I both like). As an alternate suggestion they might serve him a special a la Fried Green Tomatoes.
The default BBW is goat?!!???
Sorry, too much time in the ‘personal’ adds. BBW is a Big Beautiful Woman.
Now, I have heard some stories about Kentucky…
Also, Paul apparently leads his Democratic opponent by 25 fucking points. Some segments of the South simply refuse to be dragged into the 21st century.
To paraphrase Tim Minchin:
Fucking mother-fuckers!
That’s a Rasmussen poll– don’t believe it. See http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/19/867829/-Rasmussens-%28dishonest%29-game
Where in the constitution is congress allowed to ban racism in private business that does not cross state line?
I would gladly support a amendment to allow such a law but, as of now, it is unconstitutional.
You have to be fucking kidding!
Very insightful answer.
From the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
This reads to me like it goes across state lines.
That is law a passed by congress but where is the constitutional justification for congress having the power to pass this law? The 10th amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In other words, if the constitution does not grant a power to the federal government, the federal government does not have the power.
Where is the power to regulate private, intrastate racism mentioned in constitution? As I said, I agree with the law and would support a constitutional amendment allowing it but it is not a constitutional law.
“As I said, I agree with the law and would support a constitutional amendment allowing it…”
Hmmm…. why does that strike me as not so much true?
The 10th Amendment is not a limitation on Congressional power, it is a truism.
The following, in the unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 123-124 (1941)(which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act:
“Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the [312 U.S. 100, 124] States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people’. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot’s Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, secs. 1907, 1908.”
“From the beginning and for many years the amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end. Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324, 325; McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, 4 Wheat. 405, 406; Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. Appendix, 697, 705; Lottery Case, supra; Northern Securities Co. v. United States, supra, 193 U.S. 344, 345 , 24 S.Ct. 459, 460; Everard’s Breweries v. Day, supra, 265 U.S. 558 , 44 S.Ct. 631; United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 , 51 S.Ct. 220, 222, 71 A.L.R. 1381; see United States v. The Brigantine William, 28 Fed.Cas. 614, 622, No. 16,700. Whatever doubts may have arisen of the soundness of that conclusion they have been put at rest by the decisions under the Sherman Act and the National Labor Relations Act which we have cited. See, also, Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 330 , 331 S., 56 S.Ct. 466, 475; Wright v. Union Central Ins. Co., 304 U.S. 502, 516 , 58 S.Ct. 1025, 1033.”
Well, duh. It’s like we are supposed to believe a government was meant to be powerless.
Now I’m facing a problem, or more precisely the libertarians are. In their ideology it is correct to overlook trivial misdirections such as the lack of empowerment would have constituted. They can greedily grasp at any inconsistency, real or perceived, because they don’t (have to) see a government as a functional trait.
In all other political philosophies and, more importantly, empirically the government is executing functions, even important such. So here the above greediness is functionally equivalent to sophistry.
I’m an empiricist, who at the moment for lack of a tested political method, accepts realpolitik. It isn’t morally acceptable to project ones own analysis on others, but it is _really_ tempting to claim sophistry at this point.
This point, libertarianism problems with analyzing government function remind of the discussion between you and Ophelia on the actual vs perceived practical limits of libertarianism (“not the answer”) and you and Dan on its problems with rights. (Perhaps more of the later, because there you give a specific reason why libertarians would _want_ to misconstrue governments besides their ideological ability to simply do so.)
But this is great! I’m learning politics ideology, which I gave up when I realized it is practically tantamount to religion at this time. But even an “aideologist” benefit from knowing the phantasms of other’s thinking. And boy, do the libertarians lug around some baggage!
I think the quote is there because it defeats a common notion among right wingers and libertarians, namely that the Constitution established a very weak federal government with extremely limited powers. This is nonsense.
The purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to create a strong central government, although one which did not occupy the entire field of government.
Moreover, given the extensive list of enumerated powers, the grand scope of the implied powers (especially in light of the necessary and proper clause) and the effect of the 14th Amendment, it is nonsense to say that the federal government was intended to be a weak one with very limited powers. It wasn’t and isn’t.
In those areas with which it has powers to act, its powers are essentially limited only by the other provisions of the Constitution. And that’s where the 10th Amendment comes in.
Because the 10th Amendment is a mere truism, it cannot be validly asserted as a counter to the claim that the government cannot exercise an implied power, or a power through the necessary and proper clause, as some right wingers and libertarians would propose.
That’s why, here, Curtis’s invocation of the 10th Amendment is misguided. The government, under the Commerce Clause and the necessary and proper clause has the right to eliminate discrimination in public accomodations, be they direct interstate commerce or indirect, seemingly intrastate, commerce. As that is true, it is therefore no counter to then argue that that power may not be exercised by the Federal gov’t under the 10th Amendment. Once the power exists, it exists. And here it clearly does.
Woody, thanks for setting me straight on the “distributed” vs central government thingie, a nuance that I somehow lost. [An explanation may be that this isn’t controversial where I live.]
As for the libertarian’s priorities as claimed and as exemplified here, I have tried to reason it out to my satisfaction. As Chris notes property is a social construct, and so are human rights. He also notes that libertarian views come easily to many such as me, since it is an argument of methodology which contain in principle testing and parsimony, as well as some facts (free markets working).
My main trouble with libertarianism is that it is ideological, so testing is withdrawn from the table. (As opposed to realpolitik, for example.) I have also had trouble with that it, taken at face value, can be general and inclusive; I don’t know how they explain democracy, its success and the coupling to market economy in minimizing poverty. (As for example Gapminder statistics tells us can be observed.)
Now we have this libertarian choice between property and civil (human) rights. What would be _my_ “null hypothesis”? Seeing that civil rights can’t be feasibly constrained (wouldn’t work well enough because of moral problems, social resentment et cetera) while property rights can (markets work well enough despite taxes et cetera), it’s a no brainer. [Except that I had to analyze it. :-D]
A more libertarian posed argument would be to look at market fixes such as policing of organized oligopoly et cetera. Such a fix would need to police Rand Paul’s suggestion, so that the choice he suggests would actually reasonably well be there.
Besides that it hasn’t worked (wasn’t that what US social rights movement was about?) it isn’t simple practical; added regulation and complexity is “non-libertarian”. Rand Paul should be skewered by his own constituents for all of that, if they have a choice. Let us hope so.
“I have also had trouble with that it, taken at face value, can be general and inclusive” – I have also had trouble with how it, taken at face value, can be general and inclusive.
Oh, and I forgot: if it seems odd that I greedily appeal to testing and “working”, without appeal to ethics, it is because I don’t see how that isn’t yet another ideology but in the guise of some philosophy, for example utilitarianism. In that absence I have solely testing and observing social, at the basis evolutionary established, morality as guides. To outsiders the outcome of that rationale can look fucked up, I imagine.
Woody,
Thank you for providing good information explaining the rationale supporting the accepted view. The fact that it was unanimous would hold more weight except that the same justices approved of Japanese internment a few years later.
Their interpretation seems wrong to me. IMO, if you left out the phrase “by the constitution” it would be a truism. With those words in place, it clearly (to me anyhow) limits federal power to what is enumerated in the constitution. I do not know the historically context for the phrase but the constitution rarely includes words unless there is a true reason for them. Perhaps a historical perspective would change my mind.
Over the years the supreme court has steadily (wrongly IMO) expanded the scope of the federal government. Amendments used to be required when the scope of government was expanded (e.g. prohibition and the income tax) but now new powers are being found every where.
Well, I don’t think you should look sideways at this holding because of Korematsu and Hirabayashi, because what lead them astray in those cases was deference to the political branches and the military. Those cases should be a warning about doing so which, sadly, the USSC never seems to heed.
Further, I honestly don’t see how the inclusion of those words matters. Where else but “by the constitution” would the Federal Government obtain power, under the constitution?
I think the conceptual problem lies in the fact that under the Constitution, while the subject matter which the federal government can address is limited, in the sense of being enumerated, but it enumerates an awful lot of areas for the federal governement to exercise power. Moreover, the power granted to the federal government within those enumerated areas is immense and essentially unlimmited, save for the other terms of the Constitution. This includes implied powers as well. This Constitution is in no way a libertarian document, nor is it a document requiring the establishment of a weak, small government.
I don’t agree with your view that the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of government. It hasn’t. The political branches have expanded the exercise of federal power, within the enumerated areas; all the Supreme Court does is answer the question of whether it is permitted or not. And most often it answers “okay” because the document is not, on its fact, very limiting in terms of the powers which can be exercized in the enumerated areas.
It cannot answer whether it is wise to such expansion to occur.
Consider this: the federal government as it exists today is nowhere near the size and power which it legally could be under the Constitution. The notion that, sometime in the past, the government was at maximum permitted size and power under the Constitution and that the Courts have let it run amok since then, is simply false.
However, whether the goverment should or should not exercise those powers it can exercise under the constitution but does not do so is a political question, not a legal one.
Finally, as for your two example, I don’t beleive an amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol consumption, manufacturing and distribution, as it would have fallen under the commerce clause (although key cases hadn’t been decided at that time.) However, that was a political decision by those pushing prohibition to prevent the easy reversal of their efforts at prohibition.
The income tax matter (and the power to outlaw slavery, for that matter) was a good example of the type of power which was not enumerated as a power of the federal government prior to Amendment, which therefore required Amendment.
Woody,
In case you are still paying attention to this thread, I found something interesting that supports my view of the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act and the Supreme Court granting the more and more power to the federal government.
In 1875, congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which “guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in public accommodations.” (From Wikipedia) This was declared unconstituional. The same guarantees were repeat a century later and declared constitutional. The constitution did not change but somehow its meaning was.
So you are assuming that the SCOTUS of 1875 made the correct ruling? Bad Assumption. Until the Civil war, slavery was constitutional. Also women had to have an amendment to get rights. I think the previous interpretation was wrong. Women has rights but the interpretation was incorrect.
Regardless, the constitution should be considered a living document whose interpretations can change over time. Life in the US certainly has changed over time.
14th Amendment.
Did you fall asleep in 8th grade American History class?
You know, Civil War, equal rights, due process, equal protection under the law?
No kidding. The candidate is espousing a fundamentally anti-Constitutional position. Which makes him anti-American.
Yep.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
In section 1, the first sentence says former slaves are citizens. The second starts “No state shall …” and later guarantees equal protection under the law.
This amendment has nothing to do with private business.
Wow… you really are ignorant.
Perhaps, I am ignorant but you did not answer the question.
So, Curtis, if the law is unconstitutional, why has the Supreme Court failed to declare it so? Did it forget, or what?
Da Supreme Court is full of Libruls, Catlicks, Jooz, and Wimmin from Hahvud and Yay-ul, dats why, Ophelia 😉
The first sentence is not limited to former slaves. It applies to anyone born in the United States.
Second, although I believe that this issue is a Commerce Clause/necessary and proper issue, I think the 14th A. could work, in a pinch.
While the second sentence starts, “No state shall…” you left out the part where it explains what the state shall not do. It (and, as a matter of law, its subdivisions) shall not “enforce any law abridging the the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The question then becomes whether, by enforcing property laws which would permit a racist business owner from discrimining based on race, the state would be abridging a privilege or immunity. That’s a dicey question, but I think a good argument could be made that it should include the right to liberty, as set out in the Amendment, as well as the right to equal protection.
I think the main difference here is what Libertarians consider a right.
Everyone agrees that people have a right to vote, make use of the post office, public library, etc. Everyone agrees that people don’t have a right to enter a private residence uninvited and expect to be welcomed.
Libertarians extend that line of thought to patronizing private businesses and being employed by private businesses.
This position might commonly be motivated by racism, but it doesn’t seem inherently racist to me.
Well, the notion of a “right” is a rather clunky poli-sci solution to a pecular is/aught problem. (although perhaps “aught/is” is a better way of putting it in this context.)
A “right,” simply, is nothing more than that which the society permits, while pretending that it has no part in the process. Societies believe that certain things aught to be permitted, so they pretend that they exist, from some other source other than society’s decision. Odd, but there’s legitimate reasons why it is preferrable to do it this way.
Libertarian’s take on rights is odd, because it tries to eliminate the role of society, in the guise of society’s creature, government [often to the point of pretending that society and government are unconnected], without recognizing that those rights are the product of that same society.
“Everyone agrees that people have a right to vote, make use of the post office, public library, etc.”
Really? Are you sure about that? Less than half a century ago that claim would have been obviously absurd in the US, since it was exactly the issue that people were fighting to the death over. It was exactly the issue that convulsed the 1964 Democratic Convention when it refused to seat the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.
It’s always a mistake to overestimate what “everyone agrees that.”
“Where in the constitution is congress allowed to ban racism in private business that does not cross state line?”
The Commerce clause, alone or in combination with the Necessary and proper clause, and the 14th Amendment.
See Heart of Atlanta Motel v U.S., 1964
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_515
The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was “carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . .” The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no “right” to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.
It was a unanimous decision.
Being the slimy shit that he is, Paul tried to blame his own words on Rachel Maddow and then he took it all back proclaiming he supports the 1964 Civil rights act
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/reversal-paul-backs-govt-enforced-ban-on-discrimination.php?ref=tn
Bob beat me to it, but I got linkage.
Can you BELIEVE that shit? Two-faced such-n-such.
This just in from Venter’s lab:
‘The first synthetic cell, Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, shows what an ass Rand Paul is. We were all products of natural cells before this. It’s a bad business decision to exclude synthetic cells from dinner plates or guest seats. Synthetism is not an option.’
Jerry Coyne wrote
‘Back then it was “states’ rights.” Now it’s “free speech.”’
I don’t know how old Mr. Coyne is, but this is not really true. Then (1950’s and earlier), as now, non-discrimination laws were criticized as attacks on free speech, this is nothing new. All actions are arguably expressions of personal viewpoints, and thus arguably speech. So under this perspective the government can’t tell us what to do or what not to do without impinging our free speech. There is some truth to this, but its not sensible or balanced to conclude that government shouldn’t intervene to prevent employment discrimination. Employment discrimination clearly creates victims, its clearly unjust, and there is clearly no remedy more effective than enforced laws. Again, there is a balance to be struck here, at some point the cost and benefit tradeoff changes, and the anti-discrimination law takes this into account by exempting small businesses.
When I arrived at Keesler AFB, Mississippi in late 1956 our ‘community’ orientation included the proviso that no inter-racial association was allowed off base; i.e., if a black and a white were together in town, even walking down the street together, they would be arrested and jailed for disturbing the peace.
The ‘orienteer’ also offered this tidbit, “the white holding cell isn’t too bad, but heaven help anyone in the Black holding cell.”
Citing the Constitution is always an interesting exercise, but it’s a contract with the American people and like all contracts is only enforceable in a court of law, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court. All issues unresolved by SCOTUS are fair game for lively debate. I think they have spoken on this several times before.
A data point that suggests that Rand Paul’s libertarianism is sincere and that this isn’t about racism- he seems to be defending BP on essentially libertarian grounds- http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/21/paul-says-obama-being-too-tough-on-bp/?hpt=T2 . That’s a very unpopular position to take right now.
I see that supporting freedom of association and private property rights gets you labeled “racist” by fake evolutionary biologists who reject real Darwinism, as Darwin’s political incorrectness would cause them to commit suicide.
This is dishonest, Jerry.
If someone believes in freedom of speech, that means they believe in the rights of racists to say that jews are the spawn of Satan and have horns. You have to defend that if you believe in freedom of speech. That doesn’t make them in the least anti-Semetic. It means they stand by their principles and believe that ultimately free speech leads to better outcomes than government controlled speech.
The exact same thing applies with property rights. Rand Paul was not defending the rights of property owners to determine who they invite onto their propery and who they do not based on free speech. It was based on freedom of association which the government is forbidden (by the Constitution) from interfering with.
If you think Rand Paul, or libertarians in general, are racist you’ll have to do a lot better than showing evidence that he believes in limited government.