As long as the owners don’t impede on other’s right to life, liberty and property.
Don’t ever stall…you’ll end up having to answer the question anyway…and you’ll come off looking worse…
I know forum software should do this automatically, but anway, everyone please take a second to activate the links you paste. Just highlight the url, copy, click on the little chain-link/globe button, paste, and click okay.
Why the hell did he go on Maddow?
It doesn’t matter if it was right or wrong to go on Maddow, it’s pointless to discuss because our opinion doesn’t matter. The only opinion that matters is Rand Paul’s because he’s the one that had the power to do it.
I haven’t been following Rand much lately ever since I heard of the interview where he implied some neo-con tendencies in his foreign policy. How is his platform now? Is he really a younger Ron Paul? Or should we be worried about him carrying the torch for a Libertarian message.
Bad interview, and even worse comments left at the nytimes page. Serenity now!
Also, for those wanting a clickable link: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/pauls-views-on-civil-rights-cause-a-stir/?partner=rss&emc=rss
It was a bad interview because he was being evasive. He has nobody to blame but himself.
If you’re going to stand up for individual freedom, then you have to be as direct as possible. Then continue to explain yourself.
This is what politics does to you. It forces you to compromise your values and sense of reason.
These type of questions are predictable. He should have prepared himself. Yes they have a right to segregate their lunches!
“It doesn’t matter if it was right or wrong to go on Maddow, it’s pointless to discuss because our opinion doesn’t matter. The only opinion that matters is Rand Paul’s because he’s the one that had the power to do it.”
Very true.
This is how I like to approach to the issue with non-libertarians, though it might not be suitable for national TV political sound-byteing:
We recognize that homeowners may discriminate on whatever basis they please in deciding who to admit into their home. The reason is that we recognize that the terms under which someone may enter a home are set by the sole discretion of that home’s owner. A place of business is usually owned by the business owner and is that business owner’s private property. Except in the minds of politicians, there really is no bright line dividing places of business from homes (think of in-home daycare or any other home business). Hence, the debate is really over how private business really are. And I support the right of would-be patrons who are excluded from any business - say, a blacks-only college, for example - to sue the business under law if they believe that business has violated their legal rights in some way. But I do not support a statutory imposition of the judgment of politicians in Washington DC over the use of private property. Let’s have the debate over how private a business really is or ought to be but let’s not try to argue this as if it is a racial issue.
Clayton -
I would have liked him for going on Maddow and then kicking her ass. Instead he just tried to weasle himself out of questions like a typical politician. I don’t think its going to come off very well trying to be a half principled libertarian and a full time sleazy politician.
I did like the point of flipping the argument onto gun rights. Its true that you can’t be consistent and say that business owners can restrict people bringing guns on their property but not be able to discriminate by race. In fact, guns are more important, they are in the ‘bill of rights.’
Dare anyone who brings up the issue of race if they support the ending of the war on drugs or not. Or if they support the perpetual war against arabs.
He should have just said that he opposes both segregation and integration. That would have really confused the hell out of Maddow.
Because obviously there is no third option, such as no laws that force people apart or that force people together.
Holy crapolie!
NYT actually used the word “forced” in their article when describing desegregation! This is a great day for the libertarian movement.
I know I should expect this, but it is so disheartening how the mainstream media is covering this issue. We can’t have an honest discussion about the role of private property rights without being accused of racism or being labeled as “fringe”. Almost all media outlets are reporting it as .. “Rand Paul supports the right of businesses to discrimate against people of color”. I haven’t heard one person on the news today make a coeherent libertarian argument in defense of Rand Paul.
I believe the issue is rather simple;
What is worse: someone being a racist, or throwing a racist --who is otherwise peaceful-- in jail? Throwing the racist in jail is most definitely worse.
Racism (as commonly understood) is irrational. Being irrational is not a crime. Hurting other people’s person or their property is a crime. If you jail a person who’s only vice is racism then you’re committing a crime. Committing a crime shouldn’t be the business of government.
Conclusion: the proper way of dealing with racism is education as main tactic and social ostracism as fallback tactic. This is how slavery was abolished in the first place (in most non-US countries anyway). It also happens to be the case that racism is economically self-defeating as it creates profit opportunities for competitors by taking away one’s access to part of the workforce. The same is true for sexism.
Rand Paul, feel free to use this and educate the masses.
If I was Rand Paul this is what I would have said.
"Rachel, Title II of the CRA of 1964 wasnt about racism, the precedent that government set was the intrusion of coercive government dictating to a private business owner who they can and get serve. If the government can tell me who to serve and who I get my business from, who really is calling the shots? Who really runs the business? A perfect example of this would be the SCOTUS case Wickard v. Filburn. Mr. Filburn was growing wheat on his farm which he owned, the federal government set price controls and quotas on the amount of wheat that can be alloted. Mr. Filburn grew more wheat than the quota that was set and he had no intention of selling it, he wanted to use it for his own personal use. The Secy of Agriculture fined him and took his excess wheat. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the federal government in allowing the confiscation of private property and Mr. Filburn on top of it had to pay a fine. Do you agree with that? Do you think it’s ok for the government to take away your property pursuant to a law that was enacted through the Commerce Clause? Do you think it is ok to take away private property under the guise of protecting “economic effects”?
The government giveth and government taketh. These statist are so fixated on the collectivist theory of racism and it’s disgusting. I wish Rand would have just been himself and answered the question and drop knowledge her. Maddow is a clown.
Its because the democrats think everyone has a right to a job and food service and stuff. I got into a really long argument with someone about whether or not Mcdonald’s was private property. He thought it was public because it was out in the open. I even said “What if Mcdonald’s put up a sign that said: Private Resturaunt. People named Clarence or Clarice only?” He said no. Still public. No right to discriminate.
His theory of property rights seemed to be that if its out in the open, its public. I pushed him and he eventually admitted that for consistency, he would have to admit that people become owned by the public when they are ‘out in the open’. The absurdity was lost on him.
I think Neilsio hit the nail on the head with his post.
+1
Much to do about nothing. The liberals fear libertarianism so they’re going to try to paint him as a racist. They did the same thing to his father. He should have said:
“Why is it the governments job to save businessmen from engaging in bad business practices? If a businessman wants to lose money then he should be able to.” It’s that simple.
Sounds like he was just upset because he feels like the courier and Maddow are just trying to paint him as a terrible person and a racist, and how can anyone vote for someone like that? Especially because its an issue he’s not trying to piece legislation together about, its just his personal feelings on the civil rights act. So hes just trying to make the point that he’s not a racist and that this is some bullshit political game that hes not trying to play. Maybe some people will see that, but im sure a lot will think he’s just being slimy even though he did re-iterate his position over and over. He was just not trying to be in a moment where a news magazine can directly quote a few words of him saying something like “I support private property owners being able to segregate”- so that they can say “A HA!” and ruin his reputation for the rest of his life and wherever he goes.
But whatddya gonna do. He also made the point that people don’t even want to make a real debate about property rights, as Rachel herself doesn’t understand that its a private property issue when she separates Rand’s point about Gun owners as a different topic altogether.