Politics
Out of context: Reply #12565
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ukit0
"If im allowed to speculate. His philosophy seems to be to uphold equal rights. In the case of private business(property), they should be allowed to refuse business to whomever they like."
You really don't need to speculate though. This is simply a long standing issue in terms of the Civil Rights Bill.
It's not a new debate or even something that began in the 60s, the disagreement stems all the way from 1875 when the Republicans (back when they were a Northern, progressive party) passed a different Civil Rights Bill that did pretty much the same thing, attempted to ban discrimination in public places (including businesses as well as gov owned). That part of the bill was overturned by the Supreme Court at the time which was extremely conservative, making essentially the same argument as Rand Paul.
This is a good read on the issue, by Bruce Bartlett who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.…
"...in 1883 the Supreme Court, then it its most libertarian phase, knocked down the 1875 act as well as many other Republican measures passed during Reconstruction designed to aid African Americans. The Court's philosophy in these cases led logically to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which essentially gave constitutional protection to legal segregation enforced by state and local governments throughout the U.S.
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.
In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them.
I don't believe Rand is a racist; I think he is a fool who is suffering from the foolish consistency syndrome that affects all libertarians. They believe that freedom consists of one thing and one thing only--freedom from governmental constraint. Therefore, it is illogical to them that any increase in government power could ever expand freedom. Yet it is clear that African Americans were far from free in 1964 and that the Civil Rights Act greatly expanded their freedom while diminishing that of racists. To defend the rights of racists to discriminate is reprehensible and especially so when it is done by a major party nominee for the U.S. Senate."
- so your ok that rights arnt equal when it comes to race?
********
- race has nothing to do with rights being equal, society however does.
wtf are you asking?BonSeff - im asking the simple question that is what its all about.... if you missed that then no wonder theres a problem on understanding********
- Is English your fifth language? Form a proper question...DrBombay
- Amazing - Bruce Bartlett's work actually supports my point.luckyorphan
- so your ok that rights arnt equal when it comes to race?