Rand Row Reflections...

One wonders what Rand Paul thinks of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Political malpractice.

What an idiot.

Is it too late for Kentucky to change its mind?

Dan, a tad harsh, but a tad politically naive.

The guy wants to be a U.S. Senator. This is not the time to be having philosophical discussions. Barry Goldwater made the argument in 1964. He lost. The issue is settled.

Idiots like this guy, and the folks that wrote the Maine GOP Platform waste all our time and undermine the conservative cause by talking about stuff that turns people off and which they are never going to win.

Right or wrong, the US is not repealing the Civil Rights Act and we are not going back on the Gold Standard.

By the way, is there anyone who is not racist who is concerned that they can't have a segregated business?

Why is this something that Paul is even thinking about?

Idiot.

I never thought they would nominate someone crazier than Jim Bunning.

But Dan, D and N are not even close to each other on the keyboard:

I never thought they would dominate someone crazier than Jim Bunning.

Rand also doesn't like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Something about "equal" that he just doesn't seem to understand.

"Rand also doesn't like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Something about "equal" that he just doesn't seem to understand."

Willful obtuseness...I believe that even you know that you cant spin it that way...

He was asked a question...and he made the mistake of answering honestly...he was asked what he thought about the federal government stepping in to dictate such things to businesses...he was very clear when he stated the libertarian position...that the federal government has the right to dictate who those who are federally funded have to do business with...

His position is that the federal government does not have the right to tell private businesses who they must do business with.

That is not a racist position...or one about equality...it is a position about how far the federal government is allowed to intrude into the business of individuals..and it is consistent with the libertarian position...

Again...too bad he felt compelled to be honest when the setup question was asked...

Ironic that a person who believes that one race should have more opportunities than another makes statements about equality...bigotry and racism are ill defined by such people...

Dolley, you sum up the intellectual position correctly, and put GW in his place, but I agree with Dan. A better response would have been deflection and avoidance. I do not share Dan's frustration and believe Rand is an idiot however. Naive, I guess.

Maybe he was stoned. He does have those Libertarian tendancies. ;-)

I'd love to observe a conversation between Rand Paul and Hank Johnson.

Well I'd say naive and a novice no doubt, but here we have Dan and Andrew discussing the idiocy of a Paul.

One once wished that I'd been killed along with a Palestinian cleric when I expressed horror that innocent people were blown up in Gaza many years ago. The other can't wait to bad mouth any supporter of Paul along pretty much the same venue all the while trying to bring together a diverse group as a political group.

Yeh we are wasting time alright

You wish some people dead and they just can't get over it.

Will Paul next argue that the north had no right to go to war to keep the south in the union? Will he argue the states should have been allowed to decide the issue of slavery on their own?

Ms. Madison:

Oh, I understand Rand's position, that he thinks a business that is open to the public can refuse to do business with (or employ people) that the owner doesn't like for whatever reason. He thinks that such a choice is a poor business decision, but that the owner has a right to make it.

Such a choice might actually be true if an owner chose not to serve a majority. Say, for example, a black restaurateur in Maine put a "No Whites" sign in her window. But that isn't what the Civil Rights Act does.

It prohibits a restaurateur in Lewiston from putting up a sign that reads "No French" or "No Somalis". It prohibits an employer from not hiring an otherwise qualified candidate simply because she is a woman.

My guess is that you are a white man, just like me. We have rarely, if ever, experienced discrimination in this nation. I agree with Rand that everyone has a right to be a bigot, and to speak freely about it. But when a business is open to the public, it must serve ALL of the public, not just the ones its owners like.

You state that Rand's position "that the federal government does not have the right to tell private businesses who they must do business with," and in that you are wrong. The Fed isn't telling businesses that it must do business with Mr. X or Ms. Y. The Fed is saying that a business cannot refuse to do business with Ms. Y simply because she is a woman, or Mr. X simply because he is a Native American.

Rand knows how to dog whistle.

I'm a white guy with a white daughter, who was qualified to be admitted to a teacher credential program in a state university, but was denied.

When we went to visit and find out why, a very nervous dean told us that yes she was more than qualified, but that they needed to reserve a number of positions for others of a different "ethnicity." I said you mean you have quotas?

You should have seen a person with quotas try to explain that quotas aren't quotas.

This is very akin to the law school case that is so well known.

So be careful what you say about discrimination; there's more than one side to that coin.

Ms. Madison:

I'll add one more point, and that is that many segregation laws in the South actually mandated that separation of the races be performed by businesses. In Alabama, for example, there was a law that required hotels and restaurants to provide separate toilet rooms for blacks and whites. Toilet rooms are expensive compared to many other areas of a building, and so this law placed a large financial burden on owners, one that could NOT be avoided.

Quote = Gerald: "I agree with Rand that everyone has a right to be a bigot, and to speak freely about it."

What is the difference between what you state above - thought and speech if you will - and determining who you will associate with on your private property? What is the difference between your privately owned home and your privately owned business? I agree with Paul from a purely constitutional point of view. If our American form of freedom is to remain true to the oringinal intent of the founders, then we should never support a government policy that infringes upon an individual right. The Bill of Rights gives us certain guarantees. Over the last one hundred years we have seen those guarantees watered down, as government has grown.

I believe that eventually the market would have desegregated the south without the need to restrict the use of private property. Look at how effective the bus boycott in Birmingham was. Paul drew the line appropriately when he made the distinction between "public - as in government owned or supported, and public - as in privately owned businesses" when he gave his answer.

The founders believed that rights were natural (God-given), and unallienable, not allocated from government. How far we have strayed from the birth of this great country. I am gratified that we now have someone, like Paul, who is willing to have this kind of debate. He does not wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Rather than throw stones, how about we have an honest discussion about the role of government in our lives. Long overdue in my opinion.

Al

Mike I did not call it idiocy, but naive. If you notice I did not bash him in the piece either.

Surely its not a subject to bring up during a general election campaign? Let him get elected then bring these sort of subjects up.

"My guess is that you are a white man, just like me."

Your guess is exactly wrong...on both counts...I am not a man...and both of my parents were different minorities...their marriage was not legal in many states...and I have been the object of discrimination from the time I was young...

I am from the south and have experienced far less discrimination there than I have in the north...and I can tell you that having or not having a sign in the window announcing your bias makes no difference at all...

"I agree with Rand that everyone has a right to be a bigot, and to speak freely about it."

We should rejoice that you agree with the founders...because that is the very basis of the Bill of Rights...the rights of the individual...each individual...

"But when a business is open to the public, it must serve ALL of the public, not just the ones its owners like."
Maybe you dont understand the position...that statement is exactly the one that Rand Paul disagrees with...you can keep spouting it...but it does not make it true...

Taking away a business owners right to choose who he will serve or who he will hire is still taking a right away...but as a proponent of the form of racial discrimination called affirmative action...you obviously dont understand that...

Before you get all froggy...I own a small business...and I serve just about anyone who walks in my place of business...I hire people based on ability to do the job...though I prolly would not hire someone like you...based on the illogic of your life positions...you arent protected under the ADA...are you?

"In Alabama, for example, there was a law that required hotels and restaurants to provide separate toilet rooms for blacks and whites."

There you go again...getting business and government mixed up...

The government...that would be people who make laws...cannot participate in discrimination...that is the government...those who the constitution directs as to what they can and cant do...That law was illegal...

Individuals...which would be people who own businesses and houses...should have the right to conduct their businesses and their households in whatever way they see fit...as long as it is legal...

Without getting all circular...laws mandating who they can hire or serve are not valid laws under this argument...

Why do liberals have such a hard time thinking outside the box they were given in government schools?

Ms. Madison:

No insult meant by my guess, but thanks for correcting me.

The Alabama law was enacted by a legislature voted in by the people of Alabama, not some alien being. And that is the point - the majority created unconstitutional laws that mandated segregated facilities in businesses, in this case, separate but equal.

You are quite correct that the Civil Rights Act has not stopped some business owners from still illegally discriminating - I'm not suggesting it has. You do not understand what exactly "open to the public" means, and why private clubs do not fall under the purview of the CRA. You are also incorrect regarding Rand's position on the CRA; on the Maddow show he was quite clear in saying that he supports the CRA as it applies to governments, but then refused to answer Maddow's simple question about whether it should apply to businesses open to the public. (Rand also didn't seem to understand that the CRA also applies to hiring practices, not just accommodations.)

Mr. Greenlaw:

A home is not open to the public. If the market would have eventually corrected things, why does such discrimination still continue today (albeit in a much smaller way), even AFTER the CRA has been the law for 46 years? This belief in "the market will eventually fix everything" is demonstrably wrong.

Tom Maguire comments -

Let me just note that sometimes regulations can be empowering. As a theoretical matter, it may be that free choice leaves each of us at a local hilltop on the grand utility-maximization curve, but not at the global optimum. And circumstances may be such that no one person (or small group) can plausibly make the (metaphorical) trek across the valley to the global optimum, but all could move there under the force of law.

I think this issue provides a clear example of the theoretical difference between conservatism and libertarianism, at least the doctrinaire libertarianism of Rand Paul.

"The Alabama law was enacted by a legislature voted in by the people of Alabama, not some alien being. And that is the point - the majority created unconstitutional laws that mandated segregated facilities in businesses, in this case, separate but equal."

Again you prove my point...please pay close attention to my next statement...and then...if you can...look at it in light of your statement above...

The constitution prohibits certain actions from government....not from individuals...or businesses which belong to individuals...

There are many...I among them...who will differentiate between federal and sovereign state governments...but we will leave that aside for the moment...because it would seem that this is a distinction which is far beyond your ken to grasp at this point...one step at a time...

" You do not understand what exactly "open to the public" means..."

You are once again exactly wrong...you are batting 1000 at this point with the density ball...I think that box that government school installed inside your brain is getting in the way of your thinking again...there is an outside to it...

I understand perfectly what "open to the public" means...though I believe the legal opinion calls it "public access..."

I reject that it is legal for the federal government to make laws about what businesses who are open to the public can and cannot do in the context of their hiring or serving...that is my point...Mr. Weinerd...

I believe that the federal government can make laws about businesses that receive federal funding...but not businesses which are strictly private businesses...

And I dont care what "falls under the purview of the CRA"...because I believe that the very basis of the CRA is wrong...(see my explanation above)...

Gerald a business depends on the "public" to be successful, but does not necesssarily have to be "open" to the entire public (in my opinion). If a business owner elects to exclude "some" of the public, it will most likely fail. If I had to choose between a business that was overtly excluding a segment of society and one that was not, I would support the business that was more open and tolerant. I suspect that most people would agree with me. Nothing will totally eliminate discrimination from our society. I would much prefer a society that operates within the framework of the Constitution - that is individual freedom for everyone.

You appear to have more faith in government than in individual rights. What the government gives, it can take away. If we truly believe that our rights come from Nature/God then those can never be taken away. We are not and never have been a perfect people - we will never be - but we are a decent people at heart and will ultimately do what is right and just.

For the record, I believe that Mr. Paul found issue with only one of the ten titles to the CRA. He then stated that if he had been in Congress at the time he would have attempted to modify that part. I again ask, isn't it appropriate to have these types of discussions? We complain that politicians lack openness and honesty, yet we try to tear down a candidate when he is open and honest about his views. I find it refreshing to have a candidate who is willing to engage in this kind of dialog.

Al

I again ask, isn't it appropriate to have these types of discussions?

As part of a general election campaign no it isn't. Why give gifts to the left when you don't have to do so? He should keep schtum on these issues get elected and encourage discussion. He can do nothing if does not win.

Bruce Bartlett writes -

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

I think that Rand Paul's protestation that -

I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent...

- doesn't account for the problem that if he didn't patronize "that Woolworths" during the segration era, he wouldn't have had any lunch counter to patronize. While standing up and describing segregation as abhorrent is a brave and correct action, it is not a market solution.

My guess is that you are a white man, just like me. We have rarely, if ever, experienced discrimination in this nation. I

Hard to believe you are honestly that naive!

You mean to tell us that you have never heard of hiring, or promotion, or college admissions, or contract issuing, or armed service conscription discrimination against white males in this country?

But when a business is open to the public, it must serve ALL of the public, not just the ones its owners like.

Hard to believe that you are that obtuse!

The point being made (that you apparently pretend to be missing) is the difference between what folks understand is legally required and what they believe the government has no business requiring.

Rand Paul should turn the issue arround some already alluded to. The Civil Rights Act of 64 has been used to justify Affirmative Action (e.g. Racial Preferences.) Opposition to Racial Prefererences is not "out of the mainstream." As a matter of fact, I'd bet it gets majority support. Paul should mention this and cite this regarding opposition to the Federal Government's intervention in racial matters.

Andrew I am surprised that you take that position due to your promotion of the tea parties. I have attended four or five tea party events. I always came away with the impression that "honesty" from our politicians is what is being sought. I much prefer that the person seeking my vote tell me precisely where he stands on issues that have become - BIG GOVERNMENT/INTRUSION/FREEDOM for instance - crucial to our survival. It is way past time that we "censor" our opinions just to win. Mr. Paul articulated a postion in an intelligent and rational manner. If he is willing to take on the "established/ment" position now, I think we can count on him to do so after he is elected. Don't tell me what I want to hear. Tell what you think and how you will govern. I'm fed up with both parties now precisely because they operate as you suggest. Hide the truth - get elected - forget integrity.

Al

Hide the truth - get elected - forget integrity

I believe the left like to justify this as being 'politically correct'.

Honesty does not mean shooting yourself in the foot politically. No one wants him to lie, but how about just keeping schtum?

NB: A scholar at CATO agrees with my take.