Civil Rights

Speaking of Libertarians and the Civil Rights Act….

|

Some past Reason writing on the topic, for those (few?) who are interested in actual discussion on the issue.

Ronald Bailey, August 2003:

Not used to seeing this in color

The [Martin Luther] King ["I Have a Dream"] speech also lent momentum to two of the most consequential pieces of civil rights legislation in American history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Act outlawed state-sanctioned and enforced racial discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws. For example, it allowed blacks to come down out of that theatre balcony in Bristol Virginia. The Voting Rights Act insured that Southern blacks who were being systematically denied the franchise by corrupt voter registration officials would have access to the ballot box.

Sure, these laws are not perfect. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has been interpreted as authorizing the creation of affirmative action programs. This despite the fact that Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) declared specifically that Title VII "would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group," and famously promised that if this turned out to be wrong that he would eat the pages on which the statute was printed. I wonder if the Senator would have liked the pages sautéed or with a nice béchamel? And yes, the Voting Rights Act has led to "racial gerrymandering." Still, we are a far better, and fairer country because of those laws.

Richard Epstein, July 2002:

Putting aside the woeful state of public education for inner-city students, much of the difficulty in labor markets could be due to regulations that hurt the people they're designed to help. I speak here of…Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, against discrimination based on race in the terms and conditions of employment. This sort of legislation has ambiguous economic consequences: Blacks who find jobs will receive some protection against dismissal, but at the same time that protection will make employers, fearing litigation, more reluctant to hire black workers in the first place. One would therefore expect that once Title VII swept away the explicit racial classifications common in the United States before 1964, progress through employment discrimination laws would be slower than many hoped, which has been the case since 1975 or so. Rather than an overall improvement in black wage levels, the result of Title VII would be a higher variation in the income of black workers, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, which seems to be part of the trend. […]

[T]he voluntary efforts of universities, corporations, and foundations put affirmative action on the map. These programs went far beyond the color-blind commands of the civil rights laws. In their 1998 book The Shape of the River, William Bowen and Derek Bok argue that such efforts did by and large achieve their goal of bringing capable black students into the social mainstream. (See "Unexplored Tributaries," February 1999, for my rejoinder.) One need not accept that argument, which has a shaky empirical foundation, to believe that private institutions should be free to do as they please in this area, within the context of their own purposes and budgets. Universities are in the business of organizing cross-subsidies. Their separate and decentralized activities will not be narrowly atomistic. Freed of external political pressures, they are far more likely to produce sensible social outcomes than any ham-handed state mandate on affirmative action. […]

[D]ecentralized social institutions offer the greatest prospect for improving race relations. The Civil Rights Acts were important in securing the demise of Jim Crow, but those laws have long since outlived their usefulness in the regulation of private behavior in competitive markets. Now we need a return to freedom.

Glenn Garvin, March 2002:

In your heart you know he's WEARING SOME CROOKED-ASS GLASSES

Nothing was more problematic [for Barry Goldwater] than the civil rights issue—particularly the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed most forms of racial discrimination. Goldwater was no racist; early in his career as a Phoenix city council member, he aggressively supported local civil rights ordinances. But as his conservatism deepened, he grew first skeptical and then fearful about the use of government for social engineering. "You cannot pass a law that will make me like you–or you like me," Goldwater told one rally. "That is something that can only happen in our hearts." He understood, too, that government-mandated affirmative action was merely the flip side of segregationist racialism: "It reintroduces through the back door the very principle of allocation by race that makes compulsory segregation morally wrong and offensive to freedom." And, that, to Barry Goldwater, was the bottom line. "Our aim, as I understand it, is neither to establish a segregated society nor to establish an integrated society," he said. "It is to preserve a free society."

Goldwater was privately appalled to discover that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act rallied to his side not only libertarians but racists who detested and feared not state power but black people. He was horrified when Alabama's racist Gov. George Wallace offered to switch parties and run as his vice president. Goldwater eventually became so paranoid about the influx of racists to his campaign that he worried that a summer riot in Harlem had been secretly instigated by his supporters in hopes of generating a white backlash vote.

More Reason on the Civil Rights Act here.

NEXT: Salon: "Libertarianism is juvenile," "stupid," "silly," "bratty"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someone should produce a Barack Obama Speech entitled I Have a Scheme.

  2. Since when is the CRA a relevant topic in today’s political discourse and something that would be asked about in an interview. Maddow’s interview was the most blatant bad faith soundbite trap i’ve ever seen.

    1. Since Rand swallowed the bait and opened his yap.

      1. I doubt any answer would be satisfactory.

        1. I’m very popular these days! I should get residuals.

  3. “[D]ecentralized social institutions offer the greatest prospect for improving race relations. The Civil Rights Acts were important in securing the demise of Jim Crow, but those laws have long since outlived their usefulness in the regulation of private behavior in competitive markets. Now we need a return to freedom.”

    That is exactly correct.

  4. Re: Alt Txt
    Racist!

  5. She’s just not into you.

  6. privately appalled?” Goldwater didn’t have a candidacy without his full-throated opposition to civil rights legislation. As Rick Perlstein points out, it was why he became the conservative candidate, and not Orvil Faubus, and it was why George Wallace didn’t run as an independent in 1964. The whole point of his candidacy was the belief that southern racists and Main Street freemarketeers could create a winning national coalition. Opposing civil rights was a feature, not a bug, for Goldwaterism, and it was he never went public with how “privately appalled” he was during the ’64 campaign.

    1. STEVE SMITH LOVE CRA! NOW RACIST FOREST RANGERS HAVE TO LET STEVE EAT AT TAVERN ON GREEN! BEST LOBSTER BISQUE IN TOWN! STEVE SO GLAD HE GO BEFORE IT CLOSE!

      1. I think “CRA” is actually the phoenetic spelling of STEVE SMITH’s battle cry.

        HOOKED ON PHONICS NO WORK FOR STEVE SMITH! ONLY SPELL “GRRR” AND “RAPE”!

      2. So is this proprietary or can anyone play??

        LOBSTER BISQUE

        3 (11 ounce) cans frozen lobster meat
        3/4 cup all purpose or cake flour
        1 stick butter
        1 1/2 teaspoons sea salt (or to taste)
        1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
        freshly ground pepper, to taste
        4 cups milk
        4 cups heavy cream
        1/4 cup dry sherry

        Thaw the lobster meat in the can. Reserve the liquid in the can for use in the bisque.
        Coarsely chop the lobster meat.

        In a large, heavy stock pot, melt the butter over medium heat. Stir in the chopped lobster and reserved liquid. Cover, reduce heat to lowest setting and cook 10 minutes, stirring often.

        Stir in flour, cayenne pepper and continue to simmer over low heat an additional 10 minutes.

        Pour in the cream, the milk, and then the sherry.

        Bring to a simmer (do not boil) and then remove from heat.

        Season to taste with salt and pepper, using the measurements given as an approximate guide.

        Note: This recipe is best prepared with frozen lobster meat – do not substitute fresh.

        Variation: Use frozen crab meat instead of lobster meat to make crab bisque.

        Serve with Pilot crackers and garnish with parsley or a sprig of dill.

    2. Be gone you man raping Sasquatch and all of your kind before you feel my wrath!!

      BE GONE!!

      And which part of “Goldwater eventually became so paranoid about the influx of racists to his campaign that he worried that a summer riot in Harlem had been secretly instigated by his supporters in hopes of generating a white backlash vote.” does your primate brain not understand?

    3. DADDY!!!!! DID DADDY BRING JR. LEFTOVER BISQUE AND HIKER? JR. GLAD DADDY TAUGHT JR. NOT TO DISCRIMINATE RAPE VICTIMS!!! ALL HIKER TASTE SAME!

    4. I was going to think up some generic baby daddy laments, but I got distracted by this:

      If my blog will be remembered for anything…

      Hubris, thy name is STEVE SMITH GRRRR.

      1. ManBearPig and Steve Smith in the same thread. What an epic confrontation.

        1. I got $20 on ManBearPig. If he can defeat Al Gore, Steve Smith should be easy pickings.

          1. Notice he didn’t come back. Steve Smith’s kind fear the wrath of ManBearPig.

      2. STEVE SMITH HOPE DAGNY ON REASON CRUISE! JR WANT SISTER TO ABUSE!

        1. Speaking of Reason Cruise, here’s something for libertarians to look forward to next January: http://www.royalgazette.com/rg…..ctionId=60

          1. DADDY!!!! JR. WANT TO GO ON CRUISE TOO!!!! WANT TO WATCH DADDY RAPE ON HIGH SEA! JR. WANT SISSY CHIMERA LIKE MOMMA DAGNY!

    5. STEVE SMITH JUST WANT TO TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS THINKER! AROOO AROOOO

    6. Scheiss! Sen. Goldwater stated that he agreed with almost all the Civil Rights Act, but voted no because the section of privately owned public accomadations did not exempt Mom & Pop businesses.

      The Civil Rights Act included enforcement provisions based on civil lawsuits. Anyone who owns their own business fears lawsuits which can be costly even if you are innocent.

      Goldwater did believe the Republican Party should be competitive in the south, but he entered the 1964 race expecting to lose. He said that the American people would not accept 3 Presidents in 18 months, so he voted as he did because of strongly held beliefs.

  7. http://bighollywood.breitbart……ore-343198

    Really interesting article. But beware. The picture of the activist in the police car will creep you out for days.

    1. Nah, I’ve seen that look many times from people in the holding cell for new admissions to the Camden County Jail. Usually a young white dude.

  8. Blacks who find jobs will receive some protection against dismissal, but at the same time that protection will make employers, fearing litigation, more reluctant to hire black workers in the first place.

    Absolutely QFMT. I guarantee you that anyone with any experience who is making a hiring decision will hesitate to hire a member of a “protected class.” The adage “Hard to fire, hard to hire” sits like a lead weight on the employment market of minorities, the disabled, etc.

    1. RC, food for thought: If the Iron Law: Forseeable consequences are not unintended is true (the consequence here being difficulty in hiring and firing), and blacks are a near monolithic voting block for the Democratic Party, why do blacks continue to vote TEAM BLUE, given the history of racism and oppression endemic to the Democratic Party and the lasting effects we are seeing now?

      Another question I have regards the phrase, “We have achieved so much, but we still have a long way to go?”

      What is the destination exactly? What is the end goal?

      1. See my comment below. Those laws along with affirmative action protect the black middle class. That is where the power is, not the ghetto.

        1. John, are you suggesting that Rich and Middle Class Black America screw over Poor Black America to ensure that money and power are centralized in a small group of a population while professing to care about the entire population, promising “reparations” and stoking racial animosity with platitudes?

          Impossible. If a white man or woman does this, it’s racist. If a black man or woman does this, what is it?

          I would really like Tony to answer this question, as well as “What is the end goal?”

          1. My answer is you’re indulging in racist fantasies, and although progressivism is more about striving toward a better society rather than reaching some end goal, you could say it would be equal access to participation in society for all. For Christ’s sake, minorities are not even fully enfranchised in this country yet.

            1. You realize of course that you’re living in the fantasy world right? If progressivism was about striving towards a better society, then why are “progressives” repeatedly responsible for creating laws that do exactly the opposite of that?

              Unless you think creating increasingly high hurdles for minorities & the poor to jump over to be employed makes society better…

            2. Tony, you are not answering the question. What is the end goal? The logical end of “We still have a long way to go?” Is what the black man or woman doing racist? And do not give me the type of answer you accuse Rand Paul of giving. You aren’t stupid Tony. You just don’t want to say what the correct answers to my questions are.

    2. Especially true for small businesses who can’t afford the legal fees. Actually the same rule applies to women. Just hire the white guy and if he doesn’t work out, we can just fire him at will. The sad thing is that those fears are way overblown, but the perception is there so the problem is too.

      1. What states do you guys live in? Here in Texas, I’ve seen a few blacks and women fired at my job without lawsuits. As long as you have documentation showing their fuck-ups you’re good to go.

  9. But RC the black middle class benefits greatly from those laws at the expense of the poor. But guess who votes?

  10. “That is something that can only happen in our hearts.”

    Conservatism Fail in a nutshell. The notion that squishy feelings and mysticism should supersede rational thought is what has (rightfully) torpedoed Conservatism since Goldwater’s time. Contemporary Conservatives haven’t learned a thing in the 50-year interim. Best to let them die–or kill them outright–in order to speed-up the libertarian renaissance, if we are to have one.

    1. What the fuck is wrong with you Ed? There is nothing spiritual about that statement. All Goldwater is saying is that you can’t make people like each other and no law is going to change that. It is about the individual and the choices he or she makes not the law. That is about as libertarian as you can get.

      If it is not about that, then laws controlling people’s behavior are justified.

      1. Calm down, John. Take a deep breath. There ya’ go. Goldwater could have said, “That is something that can only happen in our minds.” But he didn’t. Instead of taking a rational approach to the evils of bigotry and social engineering, he chose instead to recite a smarmy bromide, an empty-calorie, Hallmark-card bit of fluff, as meaty and meaningful as a cotton ball. That kind of stuff works in church, but as a political tactic it’s a fatal flaw, if the objective is human liberty.

        1. Whatever Ed. I think the term “in our hearts” is used by a lot of places outside of churches.

          1. It is. And it’s a shortcut. A missed opportunity. The merits of capitalism and a free society must be argued intellectually, not emotionally.

            1. The merits of capitalism and a free society must be argued intellectually, not emotionally.

              Since when did such a thing sway the masses?

              1. Since now. We have to start. Now.

                1. I’m with Michael here – intellectual arguments are crucial, but swaying the masses takes emotion, and that’s precisely what’s been missing from free market support for decades.

                  There is no shortage of research, whitepapers & think tanks supporting free markets… Just like there is no shortage of beautifully shot, emotionally powerful movies & TV that promotes idiocy.

                  Last I checked some number of billions of people saw Avatar, what message does that have again?

                  1. Last I checked some number of billions of people saw Avatar, what message does that have again?

                    The Spanish conquistadores were the bad guys.

      2. Yes you can make people like each other. By making the not-liking not only not profitable in any way, but also very costly. Take away the option. Keep this policy for 50+ years, and as people grow up in this legal climate, they’ll essentially be forced to take up non-racism. They don’t think about it explicitly, but when they see what being racist can do to them and economic future, they make a choice, and they tend to choose to eschew racism. How do I know it works like this? See: modern America.

        You feebs talk all high and mighty about the government not being able to change people’s minds, but the rest of us know better. People are fucking retarded. Half the Americans out there are more concerned with the outcome of American Idol than who controls their government. Yes, enough of the populace is that weak-willed and weak-minded that 50+ years of government policy can indeed help change the way they think. None of you little libertarian bitches whining about it is going to stop that from being true, no matter how inconvenient it is to your dogma.

        1. And if you lock them in a gulag they learn even better right? And really what you need to do is just shoot the really recalcitrant ones who won’t adopt the proper political consciousness.

          You are really a repulsive disgusting human being Edwin. But thank you for coming on here to remind people just how gross real leftists are. You certainly are not pleasant. But your existence, while grotesque, teaches a valuable lesson.

          1. I’m a disgusting human being for being in favor of the Civil Rights Act? Jesus H. Christ, are you idiots TRYING to look like racists?

            1. I think he might be offended by your contempt for the common people you purport to represent.

              1. It’s not contempt, it’s just basic reality. And frankly I prefer those retards to you real retards (the dogmatic libertarians). There’s plenty of reason not to care about politics or important things when you live in the pwnage that is America.

            2. You are grotesque for thinking most people are retarded and need to be controlled by the government. It is not surprising that my post went over your head. Part of being a disgusting human being is not knowing that you are.

              1. When did I say people need to be controlled by the government? Does the civil rights act really equate to people “being controlled by the government”? Do you really feel that way? Now who’s being grotesque? I’m subject to the civil rights act also, and I feel pretty free in this country.

                1. Edwin, please see my question to RC Dean upthread.

                2. Edwin, please see my question to RC Dean upthread.

                3. By making the not-liking not only not profitable in any way, but also very costly.

                  How is that not “controlling”.

                  And, btw, it didnt change peoples minds. Only their behavior. They may say “N-word” but they are still thinking “nigger”.

            3. You’re kidding, right? You just advocated, basically, using FORCE to make people like other people. Anyone with any concept of how society works could see how wrong that is.

              1. Really? So the government controls your entire life now just because you’re not allowed to discriminate in business? Really?

                Yeah, I advocate using force, against RACISTS. Cry me a fucking river. There’s plenty of other way worse uses of government force that not only don’t have even a remote moral backing to them, but blatantly and obviously don’t help anyone or anything. Those are the uses of force that bother me.

                1. You’re advocating the repeal of the Civil rights Act and then lecturing me on how society works?

                  Here’s a thought, make an effort to tell people that you want the Civil Rights Act repealed. See the reactions you get, THEN you’ll se how “society works”.

              2. Anyone with any concept of how society works could see how wrong that is.

                Not only that but it doesnt work. America would be less racist today without certain parts of the CRA of 64.

                1. “Not only that but it doesnt work. America would be less racist today without certain parts of the CRA of 64.”

                  WOAH! You have the power to see alternate realities? Oh no wait, you’re just an idiot.

                  1. Its human history. People do things peacefully and accept it when its done voluntarily. When forced, they revolt.

                  2. kind of like your alternate reality powers where you know attitudes regarding race would not change without the government?

                    1. Maybe attitudes would have changed without government interference, BUT I WOULDN’T WANT TO TAKE THAT CHANCE for such a serious issue.

                      And I tell you what, this country DID choose the government route, and it HAS worked. There’s no stronger evidence than actual history, and generally you should stick with what works.

                    2. You’re right; now the majority of black people are leaving in peace and prosperity thanks to your government magic! Thanks again, Edwin!

          2. and yo, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with all of you? How the hell is what I said suggesting anything like shooting people who disagree with you? All I said was that 50+ years of a government policy can indeed help change people’s minds. How does that correlate to gulags? We’ve had the civil rights act for 50+ years and i don’t see any gulags. I see a society that’s massively less racist than it was before said laws were enacted, but I don’t see any gulags. And yeah, I see racists who discriminate in business paying massive fines. Did they violate anyone’s rights? No. Do I care? No. And yeah, sure, the same doctrine is being used to enforce affirmative action. But that doesn’t invalidate the whole thing. That can be changed with legislation, even on the state level.

            Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you dogmatists out there? How the hell does this happen in your brains? How can you hear about this one little concept (libertarianism) and take it to every extreme end, and completely ignore reality? What the hell is wrong in your brains?

            1. The problem Edwin is when you try to make serious arguments and mix in things like “people are fucking retarded”, people will dismiss you as being the nut that you are.

              1. no, people will dismiss you when you say you disagree with the Civil Rights Act and stick to your guns in the face of all reality, retard.

                1. Go fuck yourself with a dead cat, Edwin.

                  …see? It’s so easy to resort to that stuff, when your arguments are blown to pieces.

                  1. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with all of you?

        2. Feebs?

          Also, if you want to convince people, you’d better insult them more, you buttlusting little elitist prick. Fuck off and die.

        3. If the majority care more about AI than the government, maybe that means that American Idol is more important.

        4. Half the Americans out there are more concerned with the outcome of American Idol than who controls their government. Yes, enough of the populace is that weak-willed and weak-minded that 50+ years of government policy can indeed help change the way they think.

          So, the last part explains the first part?

        5. People are fucking retarded. Half the Americans out there are more concerned with the outcome of American Idol than who controls their government. Yes, enough of the populace is that weak-willed and weak-minded that 50+ years of government policy can indeed help change the way they think.

          Taking your view of the American electorate as read, when enough of them get sufficiently motivated to elect an authoritarian government, you will have done it the huge favor of granting it the power to dictate individuals’ personal convictions and associations. Way to go.

        6. Yes , you can force people to change behavior effectively. But that is not freedom. While it may have worked in America, the ends may not have justified the means. While the need to end discrimination agai nst “Blacks” may have had moral imperitive here , consideration of the result of these measures is also needed today. As Goldwater said, Affirmative Action is the flip side of the injustice it was created to combat, and just as racist.

          1. meant to say the ends may NOT have completely justified the means. Maybe it did. But the unintended consequence is more Racism , which continues to be ignored by minority leaders who still claim moral superiority when they are as guilty as Jim Crow supporters in maintaining racial preferences and quotas.

  11. The CRA of 1964 doesn’t allow Affirmative Action, it requires Equal Opportunity. Affirmative Action is a result of LBJ’s Executive Order 11246.

  12. are libertarians racist? Hmmm…, let’s see; I’ve on more than one occasion seen libertarians refer to Abe Lincoln as a tyrant.

    1. Starve Troll.

    2. must…resist…urge…to point out…glaring…fallacy.

      1. No, no, please – go with it

      2. Be strong, Hugh Akston, be strong.

      3. Don’t listen to her! Do it!

      4. Be strong. I already feed him enough above.

        1. OK, retards, I don’t mean ALL libertarians. But you’re not going to tell me that element isn’t there when you’ve got “libertarians” calling Lincoln a tyrant.

          1. Its possible to be a tyrant and not a racist. Also, considering how racist Lincoln was…draw your own conclusion.

            1. OMG what the hell is wrong with you? How can someone who FREED MILLIONS OF SLAVES be a tyrant? It’s not even SEMANTICALLY possible.

              1. Sure it is. Hypothetical guy frees 1M slaves and is a tyrant to the other 5M people. Happens all the time. I think there are some really ugly examples from South America.

                Not saying that it applies to Lincoln. But, really, saying it isnt possible is just idiotic.

                1. I think there are some really ugly examples from South America.

                  Jos? Gaspar Rodr?guez de Francia being a good example.

                2. No, saying Lincoln is a tyrant is idiotic, that’s it. That’s all there is to it. It isn’t a hypothetical. Lincoln really existed.

                  1. And Lincoln really had people thrown in jail for disagreeing with him.

              2. o.O What a nuanced, subtle view of history you have.

                1. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with all of you?

                  1. Edward, since no one else had the good sense to avoid feeding your troll ass, let me putting it succinctly.

                    1) As pointed out by lukas above, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during and after the war, imprisoning tens of thousands of American citizens who supported the Southern cause without trial or recourse. Furthermore, he did so without Congressional approval.

                    2) As pointed out by Awesome below, he did issue the emancipation proclamation, but not until 1862. And he said himself that his primary goal was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.

                    3) Lincoln made war against a group of states that (like it or not) legally and formally seceded from the United States.

                    4) He made war against these states when more peaceful and less costly alternatives were available to him.

                    Does all of this make him a tyrant? No. Tyrants have absolute sovereign authority, and Lincoln did work with Congress when he had to. But, like every other dick who has sat in that office, he made it his business to expand the power of the executive at the expense of the liberties and lives of the people.

                    That is what the fuck is wrong with us.

                    1. Your right – that’s what’s wrong with you – that you don’t see that even with all of that he was still on net a positive force for liberty in this world, and calling him a tyrant is retarded.

                      And preserving the union was not his only concern in the world. He and the unionists found slavery abhorrent.

                      And only in a libertarian dream world was there alternatives to the war. It seems libertarians always know how every war could have been avoided, and yet they keep happening.

              3. He actually only freed the slaves in the territory controlled by the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the slaves held (yes, there were) in Federal Territory

              4. He actually only freed the slaves in the territory controlled by the Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the slaves held (yes, there were) in Federal Territory

                1. the emancipation proclamation was not issued until 2 years into the war.

              5. Lincoln wanted to deport said slaves to Liberia.

      5. Hugh, I will knock you up with thorazine if you succumb.

        1. That’s supposed to dissuade him?

    3. Lincoln was a tyrant because he took us off gold and started printing worthless greenbacks.

    4. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing
      about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black
      races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
      jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
      with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
      difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
      forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
      And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
      must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
      man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
      I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is
      to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

  13. I take some measure of comfort that the race card is so overplayed, I firmly think it is actually losing its impact more every day.

    1. I think you are right Steff. All the liberal pundits are running around patting Randy Madow on the back for “destroying Rand Paul”. Meanwhile most of the rest of the country doesn’t really care. When Paul wins in November it will all be about the shocking racism of Kentucky.

      1. There was already some hay made on the ‘racism of Kentucky’ when many blogs like Yglesias’s and DeLong’s pointed out that Kentucky (and West Virginia) had a greater margin for McCain over Obama than there was for Bush over Kerry.

        So, if Paul wins (I would not say ‘when’), I completely agree with this talking point prediction.

      2. And when people continue to be patently unhappy with the direction of our great nation, they’re going to scream that we’re all too stupid to appreciate the genius of their policies.

      3. Maddow might get a table closer to the front at the next lefty, self-congratulatory and bogus “journalism”-awards fete, but these things are mostly insular, incestuous affairs, aren’t they? Normal Americans couldn’t care less. They think Rachel Maddow is that new and sexy actress who appeared with what’s-his-name in that romantic comedy…what’s the title…Cable Girl?

  14. Wow, never really thought about it that way before but it does make sense.

    http://www.Ultimate-Privacy.net

  15. Wow, Never thought about it that way before, it doews make sense.

    http://www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

  16. “Goldwater was privately appalled to discover that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act rallied to his side not only libertarians but racists who detested and feared not state power but black people.”

    Gee, Ron Paul sought the racists out. Different strategy, I guess.

    1. Troll starve.

    2. Their out in full force today. Nothing going on at HuffPost?

      1. I think they’re all pissing themselves because Rand Paul won. And desperate to scream at people about it, too.

        1. Seriously, um, what the…uh…what was I saying…?

          1. Mahna Mahna.

  17. “I’m not a racist, I just believe in property rights!!”

    LOL!

    1. Do you support freedom of speech?

      If so, does that mean you support Holocaust denial?

  18. I’m Edwin, and I love Adolf Hitler!!!

  19. Sorry folks, I’m gonna have to shut this thread down.

  20. I’m not a racist, I just care more about property rights than having a law that effectively ended 150 years of black oppression, LOL!

    Seriously, this could become a whole internet meme, like with the guy from Seinfeld. The funny and hilariously blatantly fake “I’m not a racist….”

    I want to make YTMNDs out of it

    1. I want to make a coat out of you.

  21. You know, I seriously tried to explain this shit to Orel Hazard last night, but I just don’t get what’s so hard to understand either about the economic failure and “unintended” consequences of these kinds of things, or the moral issues of prohibiting free association.

    I also really don’t get why it’s apparently so hard to understand that when someone like Maddow asks an amazingly loaded question to which there is absolutely no possible soundbite answer, she isn’t looking to do anything but damage reputations.

    That’s it… and there’s a whole crew of media producers backing her up.

    Her show, like most cable news, isn’t remotely designed to have a deep discussion that’s necessary to explain things like why most of what people “know” about American history and civil rights legislation since the 70s is bullshit.

    1. She spent 20 minutes on the question. Not because she planned to or because she wanted to play gotcha, but because he wouldn’t answer the question. And he wouldn’t answer it because he actually believes it should be legal for businesses not to serve blacks. If you are ashamed of your viewpoint then why would you hold it?

      1. Because it’s the right thing to do (from moral point of view). You may not agree with nazis, but that doesn’t mean that you support restricting of free speech.

      2. Again, it’s not about being “ashamed” of a view point, it’s about realizing that it’s a fucking trap.

        Now, I know you haven’t Tony, but you should at some point read Walter Block’s book, “Defending the Undefendable”. It’s filled with some of the most wonderfully unPC defenses of exactly these kinds of things, in fact one chapter is on exactly this issue.

        Talks about sweatshops, prostitution, pimping, and other fine topics as well…

        Here’s the problem though. If I was to go on national TV and say, “Yep, I think so-called sweatshops are actually good for the societies they exist in.” or I said, “People should be totally free to discriminate based on race.”, I’m kicking the conventional wisdom in the face and offending a massive number of people instantly.

        That polarization is what will then get me hated and no one will bother to listen to the arguments I would make explaining and supporting those statements. Maddow & her producers are smart folks… They know damn well that the soundbite itself is more than enough and that a detailed explanation of why someone might oppose parts of the CRA on principle just won’t be a part of the discussion. The trap works. Loaded questions are like that… The average American isn’t going to hear the arguments, and they sure as hell aren’t going to read the hundreds of pages of economics & history literature to fully understand the point. They are just going to, and did, hear a guy “waffle” attempting to answer an exceedingly complex question without giving his political opponents a 2 second clip to take out of context and beat him over the head with.

        That shouldn’t be that hard to understand…

        And you’re completely naive if you don’t think the question itself wasn’t entirely a set-up. Maddow kept on it for 20 minutes cause she’s savvy and recognizes when things like that “work”… I kinda wish everyone would get educated on the behind-the-scenes inner workings of TV production once in a while. News and commentary shows like Maddow’s are just as scripted as Law & Order. Maddow isn’t out there by herself, you know… She has an earpiece connected to a director and producers who are extremely good at setting up situations to play out as positively or negatively as they want for the guests.

        1. I should also note that I support the right of a business owner to refuse service to anyone, for basically any reason.

          The debate keeps getting framed in terms of white people refusing service to black people… But why not blacks refusing to serve whites? Or asians refusing service to hispanics?

          It doesn’t matter… If you own the business, it’s your choice who to trade with. If you establish that people have a right to association, and the right to property, then you must also recognize what those rights mean – specifically that it’s none of anyone else’s (including government’s) business who a property owner chooses to engage in trade with.

          But what’s also lost here is that arbitrarily ignoring huge segments of your potential customer base has grave economic consequences. Refusing to serve people based on race is patently stupid & punished by loss of revenue. The only reason it wasn’t punished by loss of revenue in the South in the early 20th Century is because the state mandated that everyone discriminate exactly like that and denied blacks the opportunity to run their own businesses by and large.

          It was illegal for non-racists to operate in ways that would harm the economic interests of the racists. Funny how much of protectionism throughout history has served exactly that purpose.

          Now… Imagine I tried to explain all this on national TV to someone hearing these ideas essentially for the first time. I’d have gotten boos & hisses before getting past my first sentence.

          1. The debate keeps getting framed in terms of white people refusing service to black people… But why not blacks refusing to serve whites? Or asians refusing service to hispanics?

            That was my point on this blog .

  22. For mature people only:

    Diversity doesn’t work.

    It makes nations into internal conflict zones, and forces a majority to feel guilt toward a minority who feels entitlement and revenge.

    Diversity is a stupid, juvenile idea.

    The problem isn’t black people, as racists allege. It’s not white people, as Martin Luther King Jr alleged.

    It’s diversity. End the charade.

    1. WOWWWWWW. Are you trying to give anti-libertarians ammunition?

      1. WOWWWWWW. Are you trying to give anti-libertarians ammunition?

        How has diversity worked in the Balkan peninsula?

    2. I’m going to eat your children.

  23. Right wing troll, meet left-wing troll. Feedings optional.

  24. Steve Harris vs. Edwin! Tonight at 7.

    1. Wait. Goldwater wasn’t black?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.