Politics
Out of context: Reply #12560
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- luckyorphan0
hey db. You're prolific, man. I'll try to keep up. And given that I'm behind, how bout I just respond to your latest in parts:
Regarding civil rights, I'll try to break down how wrong-headed Paul's analysis of the concept of freedom is. Likening the refusal of service to people at restaurants because of their dress is not the same as doing so based on race. One of our core tenets in our country is that all are created equal, and they should be treated equally. What Paul and the libertarian mindset advocates is not freedom for all, but rather freedom for the strong. The Civil Rights Act writes into law the concept that the state shall protect the minority individual from the tyranny of the mob. As Robinson states (in his admittedly pithy but well-reasoned piece), people of ethnic minorities used to be barred from living in whole sections of cities in our country because of this concept of freedom to discriminate. If Paul believes in equal rights and civil liberties, he should believe in the right for an individual to live where ever they choose. But instead, he favors the right of a land-owner to refuse tenants based on race. This is inconsistent with the concept of freedom, and the Civil Rights Act deals with that directly.
The Civil Rights Act outlaws unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the public. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in gov't, and in employment. Title II of the Act outlaws discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce—exempting private clubs.
Your perspective seems to suggest that people should be free to refuse service to others based on race. Does that freedom expand to who they are free to employ? Would they be free to discriminate based on race when it comes to their staff? This happened in the early decades of our nation, and the result was that it became impossible for people of any minority to gain employment in whole regions of our nation. Entire segments of our population were barred from pursuing their careers of choice, getting a good education, expanding into business and capitalizing on the myriad opportunities that are afforded members of the majority based on their racial make-up.
For Paul and other libertarians to advocate for any racial discrimination being accepted as some kind of freedom of choice in this country is absurd, offensive to those of us who are minorities and wrong-headed. It leads to nothing positive, and while I understand the concept, it does not lead to a free and fair society in practice.
- its the contradiction that discrimination is fine by individual rights, as long as its not racial.********
- its a logical fact that if what we know is an equal right, then in this case its being broken. pure logic********
- what about sex or age?DrBombay
- Wether its still a necessary evil is what shoudl be looked at. back in the day for sure. will removing it today take us back 50 years. i highly doubt it********
- 50 yrs? i highly doubt it. in fact i dont think anything would change it would be the same as it is now. and yes on the job selection. its the employers job his right.********
- its the employers to offer its his right to decide. oh and Rand has never advocated racial discrimination. just equal rights********
- its the news that gives it the headline rand advocates RD when hes talkign equal rights. and people pick up and repeat********
- You are not very good at conveying your thoughts. I have no idea what you are saying.DrBombay
- well doc im sorry i cant help you understand better. look up equal rights and the philosophy involved. better explained by others then by me********
- others then by me for sure********
- No thanks. I tend to listen to people who can form intelligible sentences a bit more than those who can't.DrBombay
- its the contradiction that discrimination is fine by individual rights, as long as its not racial.