History

The Rand Paul Distraction

We've got plenty on our plates without debating the past.

|

Health care reform? Cap and trade? Deficits? Terrorism? Boring.

Isn't it time we started querying our political candidates on issues that really matter?

Let's start with this one: If you were a convention delegate in 1778, would you have voted to ratify the Constitution of the United States?

If the answer is yes—and you don't hate America, do you?!—it's only fair we conclude that you support restricting voting rights to male landowners exclusively. Surely, from your position, we can also deduce that you support slavery.

Now, if the answer is nay on ratification, we will take this to mean that you oppose a document that provided the infrastructure for more long-term liberty and prosperity—for all races—than any other in history.

Creating racists is really no problem at all.

Ask Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican who made the unfortunate decision to be a guest on MSNBC after his victory in the Kentucky's Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Paul went on to clumsily talk about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, expressing misgivings about the "public accommodation" provision that stopped segregation in privately owned establishments.

Alas, earnest ideologues do not make for good politicians. And Paul made the error of discussing the consequences of stripping citizens—even racists—of their right to free association and speech.

And, as Julian Sanchez in Newsweek pointed out, "There's nothing intrinsically racist in the argument in favor of property rights—and indeed, any real liberal ought to at least have some sympathy for it."

Agree or not, shouldn't Americans armed with historical perspective be able to engage in constructive dialogue about the positive consequences—and some of the negative complexities—of legislation from 1964? (I know. Just kidding.)

Some critics eagerly blasted "naive" libertarians, and others, like Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, used Paul's "extremist position" to wring their hands over the coming Republican crusade to overturn the Civil Rights Act—which fits neatly into an arching (and largely imagined) narrative that puts America squarely in the mid-1960s.

As much as liberals love to imagine they're re-fighting the battles of 40-plus years ago, there is little institutionalized racism in the United States today. The accusation might excite some eager activists, but retroactive arguments about long-decided legislation, stirring up racial turbulence and distracting voters from contemporary debates is not helping anyone's cause.

The fact is, nearly everyone—including, it seems, most libertarians and Paul himself—agree that the Civil Rights Act was necessary in untangling repressive, government-codified Southern racism. The problem is that some of this kind of well-intentioned and important legislation has been used to validate the infinite creep of Washington intrusion into commerce and life.

While it is inarguable that many in the South used the Constitution as a pretext to solidify their racism then, today it is often the mainstream left that uses racism to smear those with an earnest belief in the document.

After all, today's political battles are about "extremist positions"—issues like socializing medicine, nationalizing the energy sector, and other various hyper-regulatory projects that are baking in Washington's oven.

We've got plenty on our plates without debating the past.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Washington State Cops Accused of Stealing Pro-Pot Legalization Petitions

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. Oh, so you hate black people?

    1. I wonder how Harsanyi would feel if Rand Paul’s old man’s raicts newsletter had denigrated Hungarian Jews instead of Blacks. Maybe he likes Rand because of his unwavering support for Israel. Fuck Blacks and Palestinians, right, David, right-wing fanatic fuck?

      1. Yawn yawn, the racist newsletters. I think that such newsletters are a good reason to never elect ron paul, rockwell, and Rothbard to political office, as they all seemed to have some sort of pro white bias (but no anti minority bias, really). However, they don’t seem overtly racist. THere is nothing overtly racist about making observations about a culture that has been criticized by its own several times. Whites and jews criticize their own cultures all of the time,a and blacks criticize cultures other than their own. I have yet to hear an overtly racist policy extolled by Paul, Rockwell, and Rothbard. Just a bunch of screaming about articles that prove that these people weren’t anti-racist enough. Hell, Rothbard even spoke positively about Che Gueverra at one point. This is just GOTCHA politics at its worst.

        1. Did Max say something? I wasn’t paying attention.

        2. Electing Murray Rothbard to political office as uh… he died 15 years ago.

          1. Hey, i’ve been tempted to dig up Goldwaters corpse more than once these days.
            Shit i’m from Chicago, if dead peeps can vote, why not.

      2. Um, Daddy’s gotten accused of anti semitizm too….

  2. “Isn’t it time we started querying our political candidates on issues that really matter?”

    Why the hell would any politicians want to talk about that?

  3. Wow. This was…the best thing I’ve read on the issue so far.

    1. best, Paul should stop with this non-sense, preferably with a comical note, kind of how are you guys thinking that I would have been elected being 2 years old ?

      There is not time to talk about the civil act

  4. Reason is really trying hard, huh? Just admit it: Rand Paul is a Social Conservative bigot. Feeling better now? The freedom he wants is freedom from gays, feminists, blacks and anyone else Jeebus tells him to hate. Gays in the grave, brown people in the fields and women in the kitchen.

    Hyperbole aside, though, let’s face it. There are plenty of people in this country who can remember when the law persecuted them for belonging to this group or that and believe that the statists are their only hope for safety.

    1. “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

      1. I disagree. I like black folk, which is good because I have a lot of black neighbors and friends. But the instant I see a fucking gangbanging black guy, I immediately hate his guts for the negative impact his life decisions have on my black friends and neighbors.

        So am I a racist or a realist?

        1. Dude that has nothing to do with collectivist/statist practical nature of racism. You are hating an INDIVIDUAL for the choices he has made. That’s much different from hating an entire group of people for something they could not control in the first place. By definition, you can’t be a racist if you hate that one guy, or if you hate all gangbangers regardless of race, creed, and color.

          So I guess you’re a realist then.

      2. Recognizing that some groups have been subjected to historical oppression is not the same thing as legitimizing the concept of race. It’s acknowledging that others have made an issue of race, and that there have been consequences.

        It’s just bizarre and totally unconvincing when a bunch of white conservatives and libertarians make this show of being the least racist among us because they stick their fingers in their ears and say “lalalala” whenever the subject comes up.

        1. Dad’s from Jamaica. Mom’s from St. Louis. I’m not white you little shit.

          1. (fingers in ears)

            lalalalalalalala… Blacks can’t be conservative or racist… lalalalalala….

            1. That guy with the gun in Arizona–he’s a myth.

        2. Fine Tony, we all recognize that certain groups have been subject to oppression and that there have been consequences. Still, throwing a blanket over people you don’t even know, calling them all rascists, smacks of the very intolerance and prejudice you see in others.

          1. +1, CP.

        3. Tony|5.26.10 @ 1:54PM|#
          “It’s just bizarre and totally unconvincing when a bunch of white conservatives and libertarians make this show of being the least racist among us because they stick their fingers in their ears and say “lalalala” whenever the subject comes up.”

          Obviously you’re too much of an ignoramus to care, but posting transparent lies such as this only suggests you don’t know to quit digging when the hole’s neck-deep.

        4. Recognizing that some groups have been subjected to historical oppression is not the same thing as legitimizing the concept of race. It’s acknowledging that others have made an issue of race, and that there have been consequences.

          Race among humans is as real as breeds among dogs.

          It’s just bizarre and totally unconvincing when a bunch of white conservatives and libertarians make this show of being the least racist among us because they stick their fingers in their ears and say “lalalala” whenever the subject comes up.

          Nobody denied the existence of Jim Crow laws, or the black codes of Illinois and Indiana.

        5. Um, dated women of color, bear hug my gay friends and attended Michelle Obama’s high school.
          So, um, whatever.
          All that’s BS anyway. By 1st principles libertarians are not likely to be bigots … period.

          1. Not calling anyone a racist. Just not buying that the “laissez-faire” attitude toward race is truly in the service of solving associated problems.

            Libertarians may not be bigots, but they seem to think the freedom to act on bigotry trumps the freedom to engage in commerce without being discriminated against.

            1. We also think that we have a freedom to act against bigotry through voluntary means.

              Say, by preferrentially engaging in commerce with oppressed minorities.

              That’s my idea, which nobody else seems to take seriously for some reason.

            2. Nope, freedom just trumps corruption and oppression.

              We’d rather have freedom of speech/association and the possible associated ills rather than a government forcing us to do/not do stuff that will most likely (see history) not be in our personal best interest.

              Denying somebody service based on their race in this day and age isn’t in anybody’s best interest, financial or social. Denying somebody based on their sex, sometimes is. Men and women are vastly different compared to race, and freedom of association permits a place like Curves to exist.

            3. Libertarians may not be bigots, but they seem to think the freedom to act on bigotry trumps the freedom to engage in commerce without being discriminated against.

              So whose freedom is violated when an Aryan Nations or White Aryan Resistance member refuses to buy a hot dog from a hot dog cart because a black man is operating the hot dog cart?

              1. whose freedom is violated when an Aryan Nations or White Aryan Resistance member refuses to buy a hot dog from a hot dog cart because a black man is operating the hot dog cart?

                Nobody, but if I saw that happen, I would personally go out of my way to buy a hot dog fromn that guy.

                What do you think harms blacks more?
                A) White business owners refusing to serve them
                B) White consumers refusing to buy from them.

                I would argue B, by a mile.

              2. The hot dog?

            4. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

              a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

              The only definition there is. People ought to stop bastardizing it to mean “anyone who isn’t liberal”.

              At least you get it, Tony. Or at least appear to get it, though “may not be bigots” is damning with faint praise (“my neighbor may not be a wife-beater, but…”)…

              1. I sincerely believe most of you aren’t racists, and at any rate I give anyone the benefit of the doubt on that.

                There are two problems, though, one psychological and one about policy.

                I know that it’s no easy thing to overcome all racist feelings. Maybe it’s just the family I grew up in (there was no absence of fairly benign racism), and I’m not gonna pretend I’m colorblind. So I’m in the camp where I’m skeptical of the colorblindness others claim, especially those who most probably haven’t devoted the amount of energy I have (as a liberal) working through my instincts on race and attempting to overcome them.

                Second, policywise it’s just obvious that a libertarian worldview is one in which there is no institutional recourse to endemic racial problems, and therefore racial problems would be worse.

                1. Whose making speeches about colorblindness? Hazel Meade did the exact opposite when suggesting people 1)notice a business owner’s race, 2) factor that owner’s race into their decision to patronize that business owner. Such as patronizing businesses of historically oppressed minorities because of that difficult history. But I’m sure the government can do it better!

          2. If there was a race that consisted of people who list the race or sexual preferences of friends in an attempt to gain credibility in discussion then yes I would be a racist.

            1. Fair enough, that was somewhat lame.
              But that’s what i meant by “all BS”, context maybe.
              Now, AM i allowed to comment on race relations at all if i’m a straight white male?
              Am i allowed to comment on gay marriage? WHAT IF I GET DRUNK AND RAPE STEVE SMITH? And then fall in love?
              I know i can comment on ageism i guess.

        6. Tony, You need to read some of my books, specifically Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics

    2. Re: Hate Potion Number Nine,

      Reason is really trying hard, huh? Just admit it: Rand Paul is a Social Conservative bigot. Feeling better now? The freedom he wants is freedom from gays, feminists, blacks and anyone else Jeebus tells him to hate.

      I actually like my freedom from people that do not bathe.

      Hyperbole aside, though, let’s face it. There are plenty of people in this country who can remember when the law persecuted them for belonging to this group or that and believe that the statists are their only hope for safety.

      Yes, there were plenty of unintelligent blokes out there if they really thought the answer to their plights was more government. That does not make Paul’s argument any less valid.

    3. Any member of a persecuted minority, who believes that a more government is the answer, is just suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

      1. +1

    4. “When the law persecuted them for belonging…”

      Exactly; there’s a reason they were called Jim Crow LAWS.

  5. This whole Rand Paul issue stems from the idealogues on the Left attempting to further their “Racist Tea Party” Narrative.

    If Rand Paul had simply been a Libertarian or little-L Republican this would have never been an issue. However, since he was one of the more visible representatives of the “Tea Party” movement he presented the perfect target.

    Honestly, I hope this issue continues to be discussed because in the long-run Paul’s position is winning the argument. There have been a number of Liberal pundits who have supported his assertions and visible Libertarian voices like Stossel have also shown the problems with the CRA in public forums.

    The Media Matters left is looking foolish to pursue this line of attack.

    and just to defuse cries of racism…I hate People…all People.

  6. I remember The Rand Paul Distraction. They fronted for the Allman Brothers at Filmore East, back in ’71.

    1. Yeah, great blues riffs as I recall.

      1. “great blues riffs”

        contradiction in terms

  7. Hate Potion, I have a question…right now do private businesses or the government have more racist policies? (not counting MSNBC who has no blacks working on air) The government is more likely to make a policy based on race than wal-mart. Please find me an example where the statists helped blacks. Is it how they shut down D.C.’s charter schools that parents loved and where more than 90% minority? Most private businesses wanted black’s money, it was the laws that stopped them from getting it. It took private efforts to end that practice.

    1. I can’t think of anything more blatantly de-facto racist these days than the war on drugs.
      ‘Prisons for profit’ …. fanfreakingtastic.

    2. I’m addressing the perception not fact. They’re the same in politics, right? Yes, it is stockholm syndrome, it is irrational fear but it’s there nevertheless. And politicians who glibly dismiss those concerns do so at their own political risk.

      “Please find me an example where the statists helped blacks”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

      1. How has the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually helped Blacks? Show me direct correlation between the passage of the Act and improvement in the life of Black people.

  8. Examining a candidates views of civil rights legislation isn’t valid? I wouldn’t call Rand Paul a racist, but I also disagree with his views on the Civil Rights Act. You just don’t like the fact that he’s catching hell for it.

    Is this an isolated view? Or did he say that “accidents happen” when BP has a history of negligence and corner cutting?

    David Harsanyi = fail.

    1. Maybe if BP wasn’t protected BY THE GOVERNMENT from its liability for damages, they would have been more cautious with their rig inspections/fail-safes/etc. This is a textbook example of why the government should not shield businesses from their risks. Without the liability cap, how screwed would BP be right now? How many fisherman and coastal property owners would band together to sue them into oblivion? Thanks to the government’s unintended consequences, BP is shielded from all of that. I guess they’ll raise the liability cap to 10 billion, but it’s meaningless at this point since it should not have been capped in the first fucking place.

      1. unintended consequences

        Citation needed. I’m pretty sure the whole reason for the cap was to intentionally limit damages.

        1. Well I was trying to give our would-be slave masters the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure if I want to be ruled but idiots (unintended consequences) or evil bastards (intended consequences). Either one makes me think about the bureacratic dystopia of Brazil where a man is literally killed by state paperwork…in a hallucination or something. What the hell was that movie about?

        2. “they would have been more cautious with their rig inspections/fail-safes/etc. This is a textbook example of why the government should not shield businesses from their risks. ”

          I think those are the unintended consequences he was talking about. If you had a Z, you would know this.

          1. Bullshit. If government didn’t shield them from their risks, then the government would be anti-business statists who would leave these poor international corporations at the mercy of the liberal judiciary. Why do you guys even pretend anymore?

            1. Bullshit. Government should not hinder nor help businesses. You have no clue what a free market is you dumbass. If the government did not HELP these assholes, they’d be even more royally fucked, and a lesson for the ages. Now they are just another example of TOO BIG TO FAIL that people like you espouse. Nothing is too big to fail, especially not our exhalted omnipotent government.

      2. BP could be wiped out, just not its shareholders’ personal assets.

        1. Under current law their liability is capped. I believe it’s to “cleanup costs plus $75m” or something along those lines. Legally they don’t have to pay the fisherman they put out of business, or anybody else.

          It’s possible the cleanup costs alone would be enough to wipe them out, but doubtful in my not-very-well-informed opinion.

        2. My point was really that Rand Paul is so in the tank for big business that he is defending this “accident” as if BP has no history of safety lapses, explosions, corners cut, etc.

          1. Actually these sorts of accidents are pretty rare. Minor leaks in pipelines and shipment happen. They dealt with and cleaned up.

            This is the first offshore drilling accident of this type for at least a generation.

          2. If Paul said that, and I don’t care if he did because I can’t vote for him anyway, then he is just towing the new party line that that “we should stop throwing blame around (Energy Department and Protective government policies, including all the horrendous shit Bush/Cheney had their hands in) and try to fix the problem.” The libertarian response is to see if there was a distortion of responsibility in this scenario. 75 million + cleanup (Billions? Tens of Billions?) may not be chump change but cleanup does not salvage the destroyed incomes and property of gulf coast residents.

            BP’s safety lapses should be punished with the virtual liquidation of their assets in order to satiate the ravenous hordes of justifiably pissed off southerners. What will 75 million get Jim the Shrimp boat Captain who lost everything? “Sorry Jim, but after spreading this pittance around it looks like all we could get for you was a $50 gift card to Applebees. Enjoy the 2 for 20!” A firearm manufacturer would be destroyed financially if one of its factories exploded, killing livestock(and maybe some people) within a 5-mile radius. As far as I know, there is no law protecting that manufacturer from being raped by the iron rod of property rights. So why is BP protected? Why is the cap only being raised to 10 billion? And why in the fuck is there a cap in the first place?

            Without the liability cap, what are the results? Ok maybe there are less off-shore oil rigs and jobs for Americans. If BP had shied away from drilling, then there wouldn’t have been an oil rig to explode in the first place. Or maybe a more competent drilling outfit would have handled the operation without incident.

  9. hmm, I actually might be willing to support only land owners being able to vote, or at the least requiring all voters to pass an economics test. At the very mimnimum, anyone on welfare (and probably government workers as well) should not be able to vote.

    IMO, it’s actually a shame that some good ideas like that were used for racists purposes.


    1. anyone on welfare (and probably government workers as well) should not be able to vote.

      As long as we include Social Security as a form of welfare.

      1. My voting for only net tax payers plan would solve that too. In fact, I’d even remove the age limit. If a 12-year-old is emancipated and paying enough taxes he or she should have a say in how the country is run.

        1. It’s revoluntionary idea. But how do you account for 1) spending on roads, etc., especially given that people do not use the “service” the same, 2) government borrowing, and 3) inflation?

          1. It’s not a perfect solution. But at least the people paying the bills would be the ones electing the people in charge.

            As for roads and other common goods (police, military, etc) my idea would at least make the taxes that these activities require to be truly consented to. 26.5% of the eligible population voted Obama into office. This is not “consent of the governed.”

            As for the other two, as long as the producers are making the decisions, I believe it will be better on both fronts.

            1. Agreed. Probably the biggest problem with democracy is when the public can start voting for benefits that other people pay for. If only net contriburs can vote, this reduces (but doesn’t eliminate) that problem.

              1. you’re right Kroneborge, turning America into an oligarchy would solve so many problems.

                How bout fuck democracy. How bout fuck oligarchy.

                1. I’m not sure you know what oligarchy means. oligarchy is just a slightly larger monoploy. It’s normally used when several firms control a market, and there are large barriers to entry.

                  1. That’s an oligopoly.

                    An oligarchy is when a small group rules a country. Of course, that’s exactly what we have right now.

                    The country isn’t and was never a democracy, though. It wasn’t intended to be. Fiscal Meth, read about Athenian history to find out why.

                    And I’m all for only net taxpayers having the franchise, unless there’s a better plan that can be articulated.

    2. I’ve always thought that your vote should be weighted by how much in taxes you paid the previous year. The weighting could be different for different political races (federal, state, local).

      1. I think that might push it to far the other way to creating a noblity.

        1. Probably not if there were some compromise. See my post below.

    3. “IMO, it’s actually a shame that some good ideas like that were used for racists purposes”

      They weren’t, necessarily. Some founders discussed such a proposal, to allow only those funding the republic to vote on how the funds were spent. It was argued, logically, that this disenfranchises the poor and those unable (physically) to work. It’s the same reason that losers of a lawsuit are not required to reimburse the winners for the cost of their defense; it disenfranchises those who cannot muster the expense of the legal mechanism.

      1. They should have done a compromise so that everyone gets at least one vote, but those who paid taxes above, say, the median tax get their vote weighted by some asymtotic mathematical function, f(medianTax, taxPaid) up to a certain ceiling value, say, 5. That would also serve to provide some incentive not to evade or avoid taxes.

        1. No, not really.

          1. I said “some incentive”. Didn’t say it would no longer exist.

      2. The Founders didn’t anticipate our social welfare system.

        These days, you’d have a choice:

        You get an essentially-worthless vote, or you get a bunch of free shit. Not a bad trade, for the “disenfranchised”, I think.

        So, you say there wouldn’t BE a social welfare system if only producers could vote? Well, in that case, everyone would be net tax payers, and everyone would get to vote.

        I suspect there would be an equilibrium before long…

    4. Right. Systematic gentrification is by no means social engineering. And when we live in a true “nanny”, or entitlement state, I’ll be sure to blame all those people who rent their housing, instead of the bureaucratic politicians (if the sarcasm wasn’t detected: such policies are just as primitive and short-sighted as they were when they were written into law).

      Anyways, the real problem with the media and Mr. Paul is that pundits are using him as an exemplar of libertarianism. As others have pointed out, he’s not. He’s just another naive, amateur politician who applies his ideology to every single question asked to him, not questioning the logic of such inquiries. You really can’t blame Paul’s opponents and leftist pundits for exploiting his dumbassery.

  10. stirring up racial turbulence and distracting voters from contemporary debates is not helping anyone’s cause

    The presumption that no one’s cause is racial turbulence and non-debate is…odd. For example, there’s one rather prominent political figure whose main rhetorical strategies since he made the national scene have been wink-wink race baiting and imperiously calling “time” on debates. You know who I mean.

    Rand Paul!

    This whole Rand Paul issue stems from the idealogues on the Left attempting to further their “Racist Tea Party” Narrative.

    Now that’s just wrong. The Tory wing of the GOP and our cosmo buddies right here deserve credit, too.

  11. GOP website:

    http://www.americaspeakingout.com/

    ……….and another American Patriot to endorse:
    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=27633#comment-33764

  12. The anxiety behind Title II of the CRA is that once you allow government into private businesses, there’s nothing to stop the inevitable slide toward totalitarianism. That’s what I gather at least.

    Libertarians have a really, really big problem with shades of gray. Yes, there is an alternative between totalitarianism and a total free market.

    1. Idiot.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Libertarians have a really, really big problem with shades of gray. Yes, there is an alternative between totalitarianism and a total free market.

      Yes, I know, we had that in Mexico: It was called one party rule, kinda like totalitarianism but not much, kinda having a free market but not really. You know, shades of gray, the kind the spineless and intellectually lazy like so much…

      1. Do what? It’s not intellectually lazy to not be a black/white thinker. Some things are more wrong than others. Some liberties are more important than others. Case in point: the liberty to discriminate is less worthy of protecting than the liberty to participate in commerce without being discriminated against.

        1. Case in point: the liberty to discriminate is less worthy of protecting than the liberty to participate in commerce without being discriminated against.

          So if some Aryan Nations member walks by a hot dog cart operated by a black dude…

        2. Re: Tony,

          Do what? It’s not intellectually lazy to not be a black/white thinker. Some things are more wrong than others. Some liberties are more important than others.

          Some things are “more wrong” than others? Some liberties are “more important” than others? And you think you’re not being lazy, or spineless?

          1. OM have you ever read any real political philosophy (Ayn Rand does not count)?

            1. There are only 10 kinds of people:

              People who understand the binary system, and people who don’t.

    3. “The anxiety behind Title II of the CRA is that once you allow government into private businesses, there’s nothing to stop the inevitable slide toward totalitarianism.”

      Well, can’t say whether CRA is to blame, but we’ve definitely been continuously sliding toward corporatism, rather than separation of business and state.

    4. Well, Tony, considering the fact that since 1964 we have been sliding towards total state micromanagement of all aspects of daily life, I guess that means that everyone who said that in 1964 was, in fact, correct.

      1. Fluffy, remove your tinfoil hat and consider this… Countries tend to socialize things when the market fails to adequately provide them. Like healthcare. Like the end of Jim Crow.

        If the country is going in that direction then it’s because the market has been such a hamfisted failure at providing a decent alternative.

        Your precious marketplace devolved into a clusterfuck of derivatives gambling that brought the whole thing down, and then you bitch when government has to once again clean up the mess.

        Most people care more about whether society is fair in a REAL way than whether the free market gods are appeased. If you are pissed about the slide toward socialism then you have nothing to blame but the market. Socialism doesn’t happen because government bureaucrats spend their time twirling mustaches and looking for things to meddle in. It happens because the people demand it. The market alone doesn’t deliver on the promises of a just society and you can’t show where it ever has.

        1. Even if that were true, it’s an is/ought distinction.

          Socialism has only been around about 200 years, and has been tried and failed repeatedly.
          If capitalism gives rise to periodic recessions and depressions, socialism causes periodic government debt crises and collapses. The history of the last century includes a litany of socialist experiments being tried and eventually blowing up through excessive public debt. Greece is just the latest example.

          But, the fact that socialist philosophy has been in vogue the last century doesn’t mean that there’s some inevitable trend toward socialism through the inexorable working of capitalism’s progression. Put down the Marxist tracts and back away slowly. It’s just possible that creeping socialism is a passing thing, based on the trendiness of the ideology, and not a innate feature of society.

          1. Hazel,

            The most advanced, livable states in the history of the world are modern social democracies. No one has come up with anything better to date. In fact, when countries (particularly the U.S.) slip back toward a more free market approach, as has been happening for like 40 years, all it gets is one disaster after another, with the wealthy elites running away with the store (almost as if it was planned that way). “Ought” societies be what the people within them want them to be? How inconsistent of you to praise the free market but patronizingly tsk tsk citizens for not being rationally self-interested enough to choose it democratically.

            1. The most advanced, livable states in the history of the world are modern social democracies.

              If they are so awesome, how come they are all collapsing under massive piles of public debt?

              Or are you suggesting that Greece is less social democratic than Europe?

              1. Hazel that’s a very lazy causal misrepresentation. We are in the midst of a global crisis and it wasn’t caused by the fact of welfare states. It was caused by capitalism, which was insufficiently monitored given its complexity and global interconnectedness.

                1. Hazel that’s a very lazy causal misrepresentation. We are in the midst of a global crisis and it wasn’t caused by the fact of welfare states.

                  Anyone that thinks you can’t consume more than you produce forever is just a tool of the capitalist opressors.

                  Right Tony?

                2. Good lord you’re dumb. Of course… We already knew that.

                3. If socialists state explode any time there’s an economic downturm in capitalist states, that’s not a problem of capitalism. It’s a problem of socialist states not having any savings because they don’t actually in real life do any of the counter-cyclical saving that Keynesians advocate.

            2. All of those “livable state” have net outward migration to the (slightly less socialist) U.S. In the U.S. there is net migration towards states that are more capitalistic.

              Your argument doesn’t hold water.

        2. Socialism doesn’t happen because government bureaucrats spend their time twirling mustaches and looking for things to meddle in. It happens because the people demand it.

          We don’t have direct democracy. Any given thing X, represented by Party 1, is probably less likely to be implemented because the people demanded it than because the people demanded that completely separate things Y, Z, A, and B, represented by Party 2, wouldn’t be implemented and so voted for Party 1. Single-issue voters, for example, who take a hard stance on pick-your-issue-here even if it means they wind up “supporting” ten other things they disagree with but view as minor by comparison.

          …but I believe you know this, since you frequently argue that the most pragmatic thing to do is pick the lesser of two evils in the major parties.

          1. So every Western democracy has evolved a more-or-less strong social welfare state by sheer accident, against the will of the people?

            1. LOL

            2. Or possibly because the people figured they could vote themselves money from the treasury, and we havn’t yet reached the point of collapse, but it will all come to a bad end nevertheless.

              1. The classic freedom-loving libertarian argument against democracy. If only we had benevolent libertarian despots to tell us what we want, we’d all be free!

                1. I really feel like it’s time to just start counter-trolling you, Tony.

                  You contribute less than nothing…

                  A TINY fraction of the population of the world is what you’d call “politically enfranchised”. You realize that people don’t actually vote on that many aspects of their governments right? Let me give you a few other main points to think about… Though i know you won’t:

                  1. The ENTIRE incentive structure for modern politics is geared towards redistribution – voting yourself and your friends “free” stuff.

                  2. The VAST majority of people everywhere – though perhaps especially *you*, Tony – doesn’t understand the first thing about applied economics. Nor are they very good at thinking through the consequences of policy that aren’t right on the surface.

                  You are particularly bad at this.

                  3. No form of government does a very good job at protecting liberty – But having a society where 51% can squash the rights of the other 49% is pretty shitty. And… Umm… That’s why we have a Bill of Rights.

                  Of course, your position is one where the Bill of Rights is perfectly ok to just ignore when you don’t like the people it’s protecting.

                  Cause you’re a genius… Hurrrr!

                2. It’s not an argument against democracy to me. It’s an argument against voting yourself money from the public treasury.

                  1. That’s also my point, Hazel… Any form of government that allows or encourages redistribution of wealth from one group to another is a problem. Whoever is in control of that process is going to redirect it to whatever projects & people they want… In a Monarchy or Feudal system that’s always going to be the “divinely selected” ruling class… In a democracy – in practical reality – it’s always going to be those few politicians who’s party is currently in power.

                    But there is a big problem with Democracy, I think… In a Monarchy the state of the state is clearly on the shoulders of the ruler. Historically, this means that when a population was too oppressed, when taxes were too high, when the “boot was on their necks”, the people would rightly blame the king or lord and revolt – or at least try to revolt…

                    In a democracy, there’s this mythic veneer that the government is the people… When it actually isn’t, for what should be obvious reasons.

                    Problem is, the people who buy that myth are less likely to put any blame for serious oppression on elected leaders cause after all… Those are “servants of the people”, right??

                    I can’t tell which is worse anymore. At least the King is a tyrant in the open… The democratic politician has an endless amount of scapegoats and the shield of being some kind of representation of the “people’s will” (even though he’s so much more often just a representative of the large campaign donors who helped him get elected – See: Bush/Cheney + Halliburton, Obama + Goldman Sachs, etc).

                    In the long run the democratic version might be more of a threat to liberty overall… I just don’t know anymore.

                    I’d like to believe that there’s a way to have a government that runs on autopilot under a strict framework of protecting rights… But the minute people are put in charge of other people, things start to get ugly quick.

                3. “The classic freedom-loving libertarian argument against democracy. If only we had benevolent libertarian despots to tell us what we want, we’d all be free!”

                  The reason why the Founding Fathers chose a Republic (aka Representative Democracy), over a direct democracy was to avoid mob rule. John Adams spoke of this quite frequently during his time: “We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power … ”

                  Adams saw this himself when he defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. He also witnessed it after the uproar over the Jay Treaty. “A speedy death to George Washington!” Of course as John Adams himself proved, you can go to far in the other direction (Alien and Sedition Acts). But the Founders were right to form a Republic, because whether you like it or not the American People need leaders. Unfortunately, we don’t seem have any these days.

    5. Libertarians have a really big problem with open definitions of boundries that would allow politicians to do anything they could argue as being “within the gray area”.

    6. Great! Why don’t we try that alternative of which you speak, Tony, instead of having cretins like Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in charge?

    7. Yes, it’s called getting shafted but with light piano music and Chablis.

  13. This whole thing was actually really great, since it allowed me to learn about Rand Paul!

    “His success so far has the GOP establishment fighting back. In his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.”

    Unless Time be misrepresentin’ (certainly a possibility) this guy don’t sound so great.

    http://www.time.com/time/polit…..z0oUZzsxa9

    1. Actually, pure libertarians don’t think that the market should dictate “policy” on any of those things. We think that every individual should have his or her own personal policy, and be positively prevented from imposing that policy on others.

  14. Racism is now primarily a money-making opportunity for a few folks like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

    The left has gone so overboard with crying “racist!” at every turn, that the word is rapidly losing its sting, saying more about the speaker than the subject.

    1. Nothing says “sophomore sociology major” like overuse of the word racism, except of course, fascism. Racist fascism…..entire social science departments have established over that combo.

      1. Don’t forget “anomie.”

        1. It’s too easy to link to The Onion, but this one is spot on.

          1. Good one linked off from that page:

            Deranged Gunman Opens Fire On Shooting Range

            Sources said the man, now identified as Bryon James Woodrich, entered the establishment at approximately 8:30 a.m. armed with a pistol. After a brief exchange with the gun range manager, Woodrich purchased a box of ammunition, showed two pieces of ID, signed in, walked to stall No. 17, and at once began his crazed shooting spree.

            “He just kept firing, over and over again?bam, bam, bam, bam, bam,” said manager Clyde Jenkins, recalling the chilling scene. “From the moment he stepped into Guns Galore, it was clear that this man only had one thing on his mind.”

  15. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center

    IT’S A TRAAAAAAAP!

    1. Ackbar? Is that you? I guess after the rebellion won it was on to a career as a pundit?

      1. And his famous cereal commercial; “Your tongues can’t repel flavor of that magnitude!”

  16. I don’t know what Harsanyi is talking about. I’ve got nothing on my plate, and I wanna talk about the past from now until november. Like, for example, did Paul’s ancestors support the Magna Carta? Somebody should call Olberman and get him on that.

    1. They were for it … but were pushing for each landowning citizen to be entitled “a comely Lass or a Fresh swine.”

      So they weren’t very good libertarians.

      1. Everybody will break with principle for a comely lass.

        1. “Everybody will break with principle for a comely lass.

          Never was a truer word spoken.

  17. I agree with the article.
    What’s the point of making a principled philosophical point to a journalist and an entire populace incapable of understanding it?
    All they hear — ALL they hear — is Paul saying, “Niggers ain’t go no rights.”

  18. I think liberals fail to get the important of property rights to personal liberty, especially when it comes to issues like freedom of association.

    Private property is the refuge of the most oppressed minorities. You could be a gay man in 1850 if you lived with your partner on a remote piece of land and raised cattle. Owning property is a means to escape social oppression.

    The vision of society as a harmonious little town where everyone shares and helps one another that many liberals seem to espouse is a fantasy. Actual small towns are oppressive insular little societies, where the social hierarchy is etched in stone, and everyone knows everying about everyone else’s private life.

    People who want freedom invariably discover that owning property is the primary means to it. Whether that means running your own business, so you can control your work life, or owning a nice isolated piece of land, so you can have your own private life.

    1. “I think liberals fail to get the important of property rights to personal liberty”

      Nope, liberals do get it. I need only to drive through the preferred neighborhoods of the professoriat by my local university to see their enlightenment on this issue.

    2. Yeah, but if you live in a society where 90% of the population has a bias enforced by established religions, then your choice are limited to (a) die a painful death at the hands of a mob, (b) live in the closet, deny yourself, and join the mob, or (c) find a nice remote piece of land and be yourself.

      IMO, (c) is by far the most attractive option. And that is generally true regardless of which aspect of your lifestyle, beliefs, personality, or ethnicity other people dislike.

      How many nudist resorts, for instance, are in the middle of big cities? If you’re a nudist, private property is essential. To keep away from prying eyes, and to make sure that you can actually practice nudism freely.

      It doesn’t matter what it is, private property is the bedrock of freedom.

      1. oops, reply was meant for Dan T below.

      2. uh oh… are we going to start commenting on how oppressive anti-nudity laws are?

        1. Hell yeah!

    3. Great idea! Now all we need is a nice isolated piece of land for each of 300 million people! I’m sure the market will fix that, no problemo.

      Lemme guess – geography and physics aren’t strong areas for you.

      1. Or we could have a government that isn’t in the business of enforcing as law the petty preferences of people like you!

      2. I’m sure there’s lots of free space in Death Valley you could build a house in.

  19. You could be a gay man in 1850 if you lived with your partner on a remote piece of land and raised cattle.

    True enough, but people are social creatures and generally don’t like to isolate themselves.

    1. Not a problem.

      Help or encourage another gay couple to buy the neighboring ranch. Pretty soon you have a cluster of tolerant or like-minded neighbors.

  20. the liberty to discriminate is less worthy of protecting than the liberty to participate in commerce without being discriminated against.

    Keep those boots nice and shiny, little goose-stepper.

    1. Wait, what?

      Because nazis were all about inclusion and pluralism?

      If you’re going to type, you should attempt to make some kind of sense.

      1. No, but they were all about limiting people’s rights who’s status and opinions they didn’t like.

  21. Good article David.

    I’d have no problem whatsoever if Rand Paul was being lambasted for his support of the Drug War, his animosity toward gay marriage, or any number of other issues. In fact, I’m pretty disappointed that he’s largely gotten a pass on that stuff.

    This one seems so abstract and irrelevant compared to more pressing issues.

  22. Someone mentioned that Wall Street Journal had reported on December 23, 1992, on a Florida court case where a white woman was granted permanent disability benefits because the court found that her employer, Fuqua Industries, should have provided a segregated workplace to accomodate her fear of black people.

    Does anyone have a copy of the original article?

  23. Yep, pure libertarian. All about individual liberty and getting government out of our lives…you know, like how the government (and not the free market) should tell women what medical procedures they can have (even after they’ve been raped) and the government should give or deny benefits to people based on their partner’s gender.

    1. Sir, you might want to make an elementary distinction between libertarians and conservatives ? which, ironically, some claim this issue does.

    2. New here, aren’t you?

  24. So Rand Paul makes a dumb comment, makes it worse trying to explain it away, and it’s the media’s fault for asking the question? Welcome to the game, Libertarians. You’re 0-for-1.

    1. No need for that capital “L”, FYI.

      1. Good point. I forgot how many so-called libertarians are just hoping for their GOP invitations.

        1. Or who, you know, think for themselves.

        2. I forgot how many so-called libertarians are just hoping for their GOP invitations.

          They certainly won’t be getting any from Democrats.

    2. What insight ACG! Not oversimplified, mischaracterized, or distorted in the slightest. With a mind like yours, MSNBC will be ringing your phone any moment now.

      1. Well, feel free to actually provide some rebuttal then. Otherwise, my habit of observing and thinking for myself will just have to continue.

    3. Re: ACG,

      So Rand Paul makes a dumb comment,

      Was it dumb because you think it is dumb, or is it dumb because the comment was based on an invalid argument?

      […] makes it worse trying to explain it away,

      By “explaining away”, are you saying he’s trying to talk his way out of the situation (which he has not), or are you saying that explaining a point is the same as “explaining it away”?

      […]and it’s the media’s fault for asking the question?

      Who said the media was wrong in asking that question?

      1. OM – I think he responded like someone unprepared to answer the question. I’m pretty sure I know what he meant, but it wasn’t clear and it was all too easy to twist. Being unready to play the game he signed on for is his own fault.

        As for “explaining away”, I mean it 2-fold. First, his attempt to clarify only made things worse. I’ve not watched a lot of his interviews, but if this is at all indicative then he isn’t very good at off-the-cuff statements. Second, he has since gone on as if he expected the issue to just disappear; “where’s my honeymoon?” Are you kidding?

        Finally, it would appear many of the commenters before me implied that it was the media’s fault for simply existing, much less asking questions. We can dislike the media all we want, but it’s pretty unrealistic to expect different treatment just cuz he’s the new guy.

        1. I actually have to agree with this dunce bag’s first point on this specific comment. Paul was god-awful at trying to explain why he felt the way he did. It was down right awkward. It isn’t difficult to explain his decision, but he certainly found a way to fail at it.

      2. Dumb, as in not politically savvy. He’s running for office, not tenure.

        1. ACG, have you seen previous interviews of his on the Rachael maddow show? I have. There have been a few. In each of those interviews, she treated him well. Very well. She was fair, gave him a chance to speak and didn’t focus in on any attacking type questions. In retrospect, it is obvious that it was because she did not view him as a threat to her DNC favorites or it was because he has been critical of repubs in the past. He announced his candidacy on her show! Plus, this is his “honeymoon period” where victorious candidates get a few easy appearances before the general. This was a 180 degree change from every one of their past interviews. Ambush is the proper word.

          1. No, I honestly haven’t. I try to avoid Maddow, MSNBC in general, and most of the cable talking heads. And while I agree that most politicians have gotten a “honeymoon” in the past, I think it was naive to expect his would last long (or even exist). He was always going to be fodder, and he obliged with his responses.

            1. All that remains to be seen is if he learns that this is now the case. If he is a quick learner and he is astute politician then it will be good to happen now, 6 months from the election. Besides, I don’t think his voting base will buy into the “Racist” angle. Agree/Disagree with his point – but calling people racist for not wanting the government to solve all the evils of the world is getting less effective each time it is hurled…

  25. I disagree that there is no form of institutional racism anymore. The DRUG WAR and INCARCERATION is evidence of that.
    Whats ridiculous about calling libertarians racist is that ending the war on drugs would do more to help blacks in the US than just about anything else, and that includes the Civil Rights act.

    1. Amen. And libertarians support gay marriage (no government licensing for anyone and freedom to marry who you want)and a much more fair immigration policy for Mexicans than exists now. Yup, sounds quite bigoted to me.

  26. Harsanyi is missing the point

    It was governments that were imposing the Jim Crow laws, often over the objections of business interests.

    With the Civil Rights Act, the federal government liberated Southern businesses from government restrictions. The justification for it was that the state and city governments in the South were passing laws that violated the US Constitution.

    Eighty percent of Congressional Repubs. voted for the CRA, to the cheers of business interests.

    Here’s a good column: http://historyhalf.com/jim-crow-and-capitalism/

    1. Right, if that is true, then just overturn Jim Crow. You don’t then need to force integration with Title 2. It is only that one part of the legislation that people like myself, Rand, Barry Goldwater etc have/had a problem with.

      1. Didn’t Goldwater actually support desegration in Arizona, when he was at the state level?

        1. He did desegragate his own business back in Arizona, and he was also a supporter of the Arizona NAACP. Taking these stances into account, he probably did.

  27. you know, there’s high and mighty libertarian theory, and then there’s actual history. The civil rights act WAS passed and we’ve been living with it for 50+ years now, and we can see the results. Racism in any real sense is almost gone from the public, remaining only in old Southerners (who don’t ever do anything) and weirdos. You can talk about your theories all you want, but I can see the results of the law, and I don’t dislike them. Sure I don’t KNOW FOR SURE if not having title 2 of the CRA would not have worked as well, but I wouldn’t want to take the chance, given the intense violence that history has shown can happen from these issues. Is there no room in libertarian theory for ACTUAL REALITY, for HISTORY, for WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENED? You guys claim the law violates rights, well, cry me a fucking river. I look at America now and I like how it’s turned out. That the concept is abused in the form of affirmative action or people trying to sue the boy scouts doesn’t negate the the entire concept and history. Those things are separate issues that can be addressed without getting rid of the civil rights act.

    No amount of libertarian blabbermouthing about rights is going to change mine, or the general public’s minds, who look at history and feel that the CRA has been vindicated. Instead of sticking to silly dogmatic principles and ignoring reality, maybe you all should try listening a little and thinking outside of the tiny box you’ve built. And do I really have to point that 1st principles are simply never going to be an answer for everything, that you can’t run the world on 1st principles? Hell, you guys can’t even all agree with each other on what those principles mean on every issue.

    1. Edwin, you like the Patriot Act?

      1. OMG WTF are you talking about? Do you dogmatists ever have any real responses?

        1. The goal of the patriot act is to stop terrorist attacks in America. The best way the government can do that is to gather as much information as possible. So, listening in on phone calls, reading emails, looking at everyone’s bank statement is good intelligence. You for this?

          If not, you must not really want to stop terrorists and you are just ignoring reality that this is what is necessary to get that done.

          1. After all, what are your rights to privacy and liberty in comparison to someone’s life that might be lost by not allowing the government to do everything that is necessary…

      2. It’s funny – you dogmatic-type libertarians are the worst of the political spectrum. You have the unflinching, unwaivering steadfastness to your “principles” in the face of all reality. I’m reminded of the lady from wife-swap that was an internet meme where she screams “I am a god WARRIOR!!!” But on top of that, you’re more self-righteous about it than the worst California liberal. Think the San-Franciscans portrayed in South Park, talking with their eyes closed and sniffing their own farts.

        And all this over such a trite, half-baked “philosophy” whose only real hallmark is consistency based on whatever few axioms you start with. Whether the axioms or the results of the “logic” reflect reality are never checked. Stuff that only re-re 13-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome could love. The encyclopedia dramatica article on libertarianism is depressingly true.

        I’m all for liberty, with property rights, but you need to take into account reality.

        1. You do realize that the makers of South Park are self-described libertarians? I love irony.

          And you didn’t answer my question.

          1. Yeah, but they aren’t insane – I bet if you asked them they wouldn’t take the hard-line libertarian position on the civil rights act.

            After all, they pointed out the shortcomings of the completely-open-borders concept.

            1. Still no answer to my question…

              1. Nobody likes the Patriot Act, and that abomination grew out of the fact that nobody likes jets flying into skyscrapers. Whoop de shit, genius. Does this mean mean legislation can never be proper and correct? Of course not. Fucking grow up.

                1. So Orel, I know you’re a retard, and a weak troll and all… But just for the sake of pointing it out…

                  You said:

                  “Does this mean mean [sic] legislation can never be proper and correct? Of course not.”

                  Consider this… Perhaps… Just maybe a piece of legislation – especially a really big one – could be 98% ok, and 2% abomination. Like, for example, all the parts of the CRA that repealed or corrected state-level mandates to segregation and institutional racism = awesome… and the couple parts that limit private citizens’ right to association outside of the public sphere could be shitty.

                  That might be too nuanced for you though…

            2. Ya know, oddly enough I just watched that very episode of South Park… And then I watched the Muhammad/Family Guy episode where they quite explicitly argue that freedom of speech is absolute – it’s either all ok, or it’s not freedom.

              In the context of the episode, it’s either ok to make fun of all religions – including Islam – or we’re picking and choosing what’s ok and what isn’t.

              You honestly think Trey & Matt would argue otherwise for other forms of offensive speech?

              /facepalm

              1. That was to Edwin… Stupid threading.

        2. * I meant to say the unwaivering steadfastness of the most hard-line religious conservatives, flying in the face of all reality.

        3. I’m all for liberty, with property rights, but you need to take into account reality.

          And you don’t think this sounds at all like something a facist would say.

          I’m all for protecting the Jews, but … you have to take into account reality.

          I’m all for civil rights … but you have to take into account reality.

          I’m all for not executing people without trial … but you have to take into account reality.

          1. Excuse me? so because I don’t think the CRA should be repealed, I’m a fascist?

            “I’m all for protecting the Jews, but … you have to take into account reality.”

            Excuse me? YOU’RE the one that wants to make it LEGAL to discriminate on the basis of race and/or religion

            Yo, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong in your brain?

            1. Excuse me? so because I don’t think the CRA should be repealed, I’m a fascist?

              Yes. The combination of government + business = fascism. You wish to use the jack boot of the state to step on the face of small minded bigots who otherwise would run their business (that’s not any of your business mind you, because it’s their business. Literally, it’s their business so it’s none of your business. Get it?) differently than your personal standards. A criminal attack in response to a person who is a self-screwing dick is perhaps not as despicable as a criminal attack on a nice person, but it’s still criminal and still wrong and it’s a long ass way from being worthy of being considered laudable and venerable.

            2. And you want to institutionalize government discrimination against bigots.

            3. Also – I don’t know anyone who wants the full CRA repealed… Rand Paul, and any libertarian you’re likely to find, is only talking about a tiny piece of the legislation being illiberal. See above re: my point… Most of the legislation was designed to correct state-level government abuses and prohibitions of liberty.

    2. One long post merits another. From here:

      We must point out that “discrimination” originally referred to the bias, not of individuals in their private dealings, but of government in its defense of the life, liberty, and property of all people (in other words: political equality). That’s because Jim Crow was not a social custom but a political system.Here we come to the reality that the Left cannot face. Ever since the Sixties, the Left has spun the line that racism is the outgrowth of “capitalism.” Without government controls, bigotry will germinate from every square inch of the open society. However, it is a theory of racism that is falsified by the practice of racism. Almost without exception, the history of racism is a history of statism, i.e., of government imposition of racism on society. From the American South to Nazi Germany to apartheid-era South Africa, it is government that (directly or through indifference) murders people because of their race, establishes segregated economic and cultural institutions, criminalizes interracial sexuality and marriage, and in general is responsible for almost every image that comes to mind when we speak of racism. If bigotry is the natural reflex of the social masses, why have racists always had to turn to the State to keep people of different races from teaching each other, hiring each other, marrying each other, and basically living together as members of the same society? Indeed, if there is an organic relationship between racism and capitalism, then history’s greatest racist should also have been its greatest capitalist. Our textbooks would record how Adolf Hitler and his National Capitalist Party created the ultimate racist regime by implementing completely the libertarian free-market agenda: an unregulated economy, freedom of expression, freedom of sexuality, private education, open borders, equality before the law, anti-militarism, etc. Of course, actual National Socialist policy was the polar opposite on every point. Hitler chose totalitarian socialism (that is, total socialism) as the means to his racist end because he understood what every other racist has always understood: that mass bigotry is “socialist,” not capitalist ? statist, not societal ? in nature. Our anti-discrimination laws were not a response to a history of market bias, but a deduction from the tenets of Leftist dogma, which now seeks to redeem the ideology of statism by placing the blame for bigotry on the American people. Thus, when a Michael Eric Dyson preaches that racism is “America’s original sin,” we must remember that the vision of a virtuous elite taking control of a villainous society that the Left brings to this issue, is the vision that the Left brings (and has always brought) to every issue.

    3. Oh and BTW, it was Maddow, a raging liberal, that brought up the CRA, not Paul. It was the media, not Paul that covered it so widely. So, I would ask why responding to something perpetuated and brought up by someone else means that we are backward-looking? Doesn’t hold water.

      1. No, actually it was a small paper in Kentucky that brought it up. That’s something that Maddow reported on before she started the interview.

        And calling Hitler a socialist is very silly, but not nearly as silly as stealing a device from Karl Marx in order to explain the origin racism (“the history of racism is a history of statism”).

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the creation of the modern nation-state something France did in the middle ages? And of course, racists were not to be found before then.

        1. You know, except that Hitler called *himself* a socialist, and in all practical application, his government was as much in control of private businesses as any socialist would ever dream of.

          People really need to figure out that socialism & fascism are cousin ideologies… Both involve state control over people’s lives… One keeps the pretense of “private” ownership and one doesn’t.

          Of course, you know… The National Socialist Workers Party couldn’t possibly have been started by socialists.

      2. The world where racists aren’t racists until the government comes along and forces them to be racists is a FANTASY WORLD.

        The world where systematized racism becomes de-systematized all by its lonesome without imposing penalties upon its practice is a FANTASY WORLD.

        The world where you call it socialism and not fascism when the state and corporate interests become intertwined to the point of symbiosis is a FANTASY WORLD.

        The world where Rand Paul is a victim of a media hit job when he enunciated exactly the libertarian tolerance for systematized racism is a FANTASY WORLD.

        Say hello to BILBO BAGGINS when you see him.

        1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

          a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

          Use the fucking term correctly, Orel.

          1. Yep. And systematized racism is segregated lunch counters — a practice that libertarians are just fine with, as Dr. Douche reminded us last week.

            I’m glad you know the definition of the word “racism” and how the idea is granted free reign to systematize according to your philosophy.

            Luckily, we don’t actually live in a FANTASY WORLD. We live in am exquisitely real one where business owners are justifiedly sued and confiscated and punished right the fuck out of business if they discriminate on the basis of race No Matter How Many Customers They Have.

            Look! Look at the real world we’re in! Look at what we did! We knew better than to give the market another hundred years to work its alleged magic! We pushed systematized racism back to where it belongs: people’s own personal delusions.

            And we did it no thanks to libertarians, because libertarians are okay with systematized racism.

            1. Segregated lunch counters was mandated BY LAW, dumbass.

              1. Oh, I see. Personal responsibility was rescinded from 1865-1964.

                Right. During that time, nobody – especially not white business owners – was a racist and nobody wanted segregation: the GOVERNMENT made thousands and thousands of businesses racially discriminate.

                Riiiiight. And when the National Guard came to Little Rock, it to enforce and extend that systemic racism!

                Uh huuuuh.

                1. Wow you’re really that dense, aren’t you Orel?

                  1. Personal responsibility was alive and well and as such, painting 100% of the white population with one brush isn’t very reflective of reality. Some folks were immense racists, some less so, some not at all… Why do you insist on it being all or nothing? And in doing so, why don’t you realize that a government made primarily up of white folks, and with all white folks being racists as you essentially are continually arguing – it would have been utterly impossible for such a government to even write the legislation you’re arguing for.

                  2. The government absolutely did make thousands of people racially discriminate who may or may not have on their own… Perhaps you are not very familiar with this, Orel, but protectionist laws of all stripes come about because one group is worried that freedom will be economically disastrous.

                  If a business were to accept both black & white customers, and not actually pay the exorbitant costs of having two “separate but equal” facilities to do so, they would actually do far better economically as compared with those businesses which only served one race.

                  Likewise, anyone who was willing to hire black people – who, at the time, would unquestionably be working the same jobs as whites but for lower wages – would have a more profitable workforce which produced more at a lower cost.

                  THAT is precisely why a lot of the Jim Crow laws were written to begin with (and why a lot of anti-Mexican type legislation is written today)… “They’d take white folks’ jerbs!!” don’t you know?

                  So yeah, of course that fear was founded in racism… But the fact that it was imposed by government prevented the market from punishing those racists and rewarding those who were not bigots.

                  3. When the National Guard came to Little Rock, they did so to make sure that the new Federal law was enforced over the previous State laws, you retard!

                  It wasn’t like there was freedom there before, and freedom led to rampant racism that needed to be stopped – the local & state governments were actively engaged for decades following the Civil War in passing legislation that goes against every principle of liberty you’re likely to find in the founding documents of the United States.

                  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sections of the CRA which ended the state mandated segregation, and attempted to fix the uneven legal protections enjoyed by whites vs. blacks. All that is heroic and wonderful.

                  4. As I think we’ve all already established, nuance is far too complex for your tiny little brain, but let me try once more, Orel… In fact, let me try to simplify this for you and dumb it down a bit so you can grasp the concepts involved.

                  Try to think about this… Really get that gearbox rolling, Orel…

                  Imagine that you’re a black guy, I’m a white guy and we live in 1945 Alabama.

                  Now stretch real hard and imagine that I’m not actually that racist a guy… I might be a product of my culture and think that cause you’re black you’re lazy or unintelligent, but I just don’t care that much.

                  Now imagine that the state of Alabama passes a law that says that I’m not to engage in commerce with you in any of the same ways I might engage with white people… This is the state dictating to me what I can or cannot do with my own property, and dictating who I can or cannot associate with.

                  If I was a philosophically minded person then, I’d have understood that the State of Alabama was violating my right to association and thus my liberty.

                  So when the Federal government came in and told the State of Alabama that they had to repeal their laws restricting my liberty, I’d have been pretty thrilled about that.

                  Being the kind of guy I am, I’d have done business with you and all would have been ok.

                  BUT! The CRA in reality didn’t stop there…. Nope… Then it went a step farther. So now imagine that the very same Federal government which came in and made Alabama repeal the state laws which violated my rights to association & property decided that they weren’t happy with the situation and passed their OWN law dictating that now I must serve you.

                  Can you not see how one set of laws violating my rights has replaced a previous one? The first was at the State level, the second at the Federal… And even though one said I couldn’t do something and the other said that I must, both sets of laws are based on the principle that GOVERNMENT, and not me or any other individual gets to decide what I do with my property and even my own body.

                  Now let’s jump back into the more complex real world, Orel… Why is it so hard for you to grasp that A. I reject BOTH a law that forces me not to do something, AND a law that forces me to do something, especially when it’s my own stuff and my own body that are effected, and B. it’s possible for me to support all the parts of the CRA that ended the state level mandated oppression and NOT support the Federal level mandated reversal.

                  I do this because unlike you, I actually understand the underlying principles involved in why it’s bad to force people to make choices you agree with. Assholes can use it to force racism and other lame forms of collectivist evil, and another type of assholes can use it to squelch unpopular speech.

                  In 1964, there were a lot of Type A-assholes… Now, like you, there are a lot of Type B. But you’re no less of an asshole for shitting all over the essence of free speech and the freedom to choose for oneself who to interact with than Type A was 60+ years ago.

                  Please tell me you understand that I’m not advocating throwing out 100% of the CRA… Just the part that made you think it was ok to call someone a racist and force them to behave only in ways that you approve.

                  1. Annnnnd…. holy god that was the longest post I’ve ever written. That’s what I get for being exhausted.

                    You’re welcome for the book, Orel.

                    1. That’s a lot of typing to say “I’m not a racist” when nobody claimed you were.

                      But now, I think you protest too much.

                    2. Translated Orel: “I’m too big a retard to argue the intellectual points, so I’m going to call you a racist instead! Hurr!”

    4. you know, there’s high and mighty libertarian theory, and then there’s actual history. The civil rights act WAS passed and we’ve been living with it for 50+ years now, and we can see the results. Racism in any real sense is almost gone from the public, remaining only in old Southerners (who don’t ever do anything) and weirdos. You can talk about your theories all you want, but I can see the results of the law, and I don’t dislike them. Sure I don’t KNOW FOR SURE if not having title 2 of the CRA would not have worked as well, but I wouldn’t want to take the chance, given the intense violence that history has shown can happen from these issues.

      Yes, there is the actual history. That actual history is still being written at this very moment. Looking around my country in the year 2010 I see history being made. On the television and on the Internet I watch videos of black men being harassed, chased, beaten, tazed, tied up, and caged for years decades or the rest of their life, all because they dared to own and perhaps sell some property, some of which is 2nd Amendment protected firearms. I would think that it should be natural to wonder about the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act when black people are so brutally denied their right to own and bear firearms and other types of property, but to my horror I find that the standard “defense” to this barbaric racist means of oppressing black people is that the policy has been expanded to include all races. I put “defense” in quotation marks as I doubt whether admitting to committing many more crimes can ever honestly be called a “defense”.

      Racism in any real sense is almost gone from the public,

      There is no means of comparison that I can think of – but racism is likely to be more rampant now than ever before if you go definition 2b (Websters) of “race”: 2b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.

      Is there no room in libertarian theory for ACTUAL REALITY, for HISTORY, for WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

      Within libertarianism, there is only room for that. Within libertarians, and especially those people who merely self-identify themselves as such, there is room for a great many errors.

      You guys claim the law violates rights, well, cry me a fucking river. I look at America now and I like how it’s turned out.

      You are delusional and you are hallucinating. What you are seeing is the product of mind control. You are the victim of a scientifically designed politically caused mass delusion. Or you are a natural born psychopath but I don’t think that is the case based on your posts.

      That the concept is abused in the form of affirmative action or people trying to sue the boy scouts doesn’t negate the the entire concept and history.

      Correct, instead it is the fundamental flaws in the concept negate it’s legitimacy, and the history is of course flawed from the unavoidable consequences of the flaws in the concept.

      Those things are separate issues that can be addressed without getting rid of the civil rights act.

      There’s only one real solution – get rid not only of those issues, or the CRA, but the whole federal government. It’s the only possible way to have any chance of eliminating racism from our daily lives.

      No amount of libertarian blabbermouthing about rights is going to change mine, or the general public’s minds, who look at history and feel that the CRA has been vindicated.

      Correct, because reason doesn’t work people who substitute feelings for reason, especially not when those feelings are artificially induced by a sophisticated mind control program.

      Instead of sticking to silly dogmatic principles and ignoring reality, maybe you all should try listening a little and thinking outside of the tiny box you’ve built.

      I listen…a lot. I also destroyed the box by seeing it for what it was – the web of lies spun by the state.

      And do I really have to point that 1st principles are simply never going to be an answer for everything, that you can’t run the world on 1st principles?

      Libertarian principles won’t be the answer for any arithmetic questions. That doesn’t mean they can’t be or shouldn’t be the principles for human interactions in a civilized society.

      Hell, you guys can’t even all agree with each other on what those principles mean on every issue.

      No one’s said it quite right before. I thought of it first but give all credit to the Almighty:

      NO STEALING.

      That’s THE First Principle. Or perhaps I should say Thee First Principle. That is the “natural law” or “God’s law” if you prefer.

      1. One of these days I gotta learn to use the preview button.

  28. The goal of the patriot act is to stop terrorist attacks in America. The best way the government can do that is to gather as much information as possible. So, listening in on phone calls, reading emails, looking at everyone’s bank statement is good intelligence. You for this?

  29. If not, you must not really want to stop terrorists and you are just ignoring reality that this is what is necessary to get that done.

  30. Paul’s opinion on this matter is relevant, because in asking him about the Civil Rights Act, one is asking him:

    A: Can you admit that the government did something worthwhile?

    B: Can you admit that sacrificing some extreme tendrils of “liberty” can be worth the price?

    C: Are you a committed idealogue that puts freshman logic before practical reality?

    Randy Dandy answered all three pretty clearly.

    1. +1

      see my comments above, too, Chad.

    2. Chad|5.26.10 @ 5:19PM|#
      “C: Are you a committed idealogue that puts freshman logic before practical reality?”

      Translated from ‘brain-dead’:
      C: Are you willing to give up principle to support some non-realized result?
      BTW, is “freshman logic” sorta like “logic entirely too logical for Chad”?

      1. Of course even if you accept that the CRA was necessary at the time (which it can certainly be aruged it was). That time has certainly passed.

        Who would go to a segerated lunch counter today? Not many, not even in the South.

        1. “Who would go to a segerated lunch counter today?”

          More importantly, who would run a segregated lunch counter?

          Nobody who wanted to keep owning that business.

          “Not many, not even in the South.”

          BZZZZT. I live in a neighborhood nowhere near the South, loaded with people who fuck with black and Mexican people in their jobs and brag about it.

          Openly segregated lunch counters aren’t around any more because the supply was killed off, not the demand.

          1. If we had Jim Crow Mark II tomorrow, you know what would happen, Orel?

            Riots. Fucking riots. Not candyass ones, but actual shit-getting-set-on-fire massive ones.

            So, that’s why Jim Crow is dead forever. And good riddance. But stop trying to insinuate it’ll be back if only Democrats lose the majority, as they are only slightly less as bad as Republicans.

          2. Orel Hazard|5.26.10 @ 7:01PM|#
            “…Openly segregated lunch counters aren’t around any more because the supply was killed off, not the demand.”

            Says Orel without a shred of evidence.

            1. “Says Orel without a shred of evidence.”

              Wait, I have no evidence that segregated lunch counters were made legally hazardous to operate, or I have no evidence that all kinds of people all over the country would be fine with segregated lunch counters were it not for the CRA?

              Because I have both. The first is a matter of public history that even the powerful imagination of a libertarian can wish away, and the second is a matter of coming to visit your pick of white neighborhoods (suburbs mainly) in Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, and anywhere else white flight happened.

              What country do you live in again?

              1. Orel Hazard|5.26.10 @ 11:42PM|#
                “…I have both….”

                No, Orel, you have no evidence for your claim:
                “…Openly segregated lunch counters aren’t around any more because the supply was killed off, not the demand.”
                Sorry, fail.

                1. Racists all over the place means demand is real. The CRA’s legal penalties mean supply has been suppressed. You typing “fail” means nothing.

          3. Openly segregated lunch counters aren’t around any more because the supply was killed off, not the demand.

            I only hear this kind of thinf from progressives.

            The only logical conclusion is that you people are all closet racists and you project your pathology onto the rest of us.

            Fuck Off Racist!

            1. “The only logical conclusion is that you people are all closet racists and you project your pathology onto the rest of us.”

              AAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              Yes, that is indeed the only logical conclusion.

              For you.

    3. I’d give both my testicles AND an arm and a leg if we had totalitarian Democratic rule forever.

      In fact, I masturbate to such fantasies on a regular basis.

  31. The Rand Paul “Distraction”?

    More like the Rand Paul 100 kW spotlight on libertarianism’s natural consequence: systematized injustice.

    Bless his toupee’d little head for serving as a guard rail for the mainstream voter by reminding them that the CRA 1) worked 2) was needed 3) would have been stopped if libertarians had the choice.

    That guy is the single greatest PR agent for the promotion of social justice legislation in the last thirty years. Got any more like him?

    1. That guy is the single greatest PR agent for the promotion of social justice legislation in the last thirty years. Got any more like him?

      Define social justice.

      1. According to Orel and his ilk, “social justice” is anything that gets liberals elected or can strenghten the bonds of political patronage.

      2. “Define social justice.”

        Redress of social injustice.

        Whee!

        Now: We have 200+ years of history to work with. Please provide a single example of social injustice from any point in that history.

        Just one.

        Normal people can provide dozens of examples, but I’ve adjusted the test for libertarians.

        Just one example, please.

        Or has there been none?

    2. Orel Hazard|5.26.10 @ 6:37PM|#
      “The Rand Paul “Distraction”?
      More like the Rand Paul 100 kW spotlight on libertarianism’s natural consequence: systematized injustice.”

      Oh, goody.
      One more ignoramus whose knowledge of libertarianism comes from a buddy who read the first chapter of “Atlas Shrugged” telling us of his/her great insights!

      1. I am merely demonstrating the plain consequences of Rand Paul’s own statements. I’m sure that isn’t thrilling for you. If my philosophy had room for the right to systematize racism, and this fact became national news one day, I’d be desperate to shift blame, too.

        When you stupidly decide the market is the solution to segregated lunch counters after 100 years of the market doing NOTHING about them, you are either a) delusional b) more tolerant of systematized racism than efforts to end it c) a racist. No matter which, you need to be routed around. You’re an obstruction.

        There is no world where people aren’t racists until the government comes along and makes them racists. Racists IGNORED the market for 100 years following the Civil War.

        Save that fucking market claptrap for someone who doesn’t know any better.

        And seriously, I am incredibly grateful to Rand Paul for reminding the world that the CRA worked, was needed, and that libertarians wouldn’t have let it happen if they had the choice.

        1. Not all libertarians, just these dogmatists. There are libertarians like me who are more reasonable and realistic. Though I’m beginning to fear we’re few and far between. Maybe there are some libertarian-minded but reasonable people in the tea parties.

          1. There’s libertarianism, and then there’s this freakish obsessive-compulsive reflex that dominates here: being antigovernment in all instances, no matter how absurd the argument you have to make.

            If government does it, it’s bad. If government is necessary to fix a problem, there wasn’t a problem to begin with (and government probably made it worse).

            It’s not libertarianism or minarchism, it’s Dustin Hoffman having to buy his underwear at K-Mart. An involuntary intellectual tick.

  32. I have a real job now that requires much of my time, so I can’t get here as often to witness the witless trolling. More to the point, if all the rational humans left, would the trolls still come?

  33. Sigh…
    And you folks want to run the country…

  34. The author says there is little institutional racism today. I invite him to visit his local jail and make the same claim

  35. The attack on Rand Paul is akin to the Democrats attack on the Arizona law despite its popularity in the polls. They are scared of losing seats and they are attempting to rally their base and ensure they will go out and vote for the moronic, corrupt, flailing Democrats running for Congress.

    Paul believes all people, not just businesses, should have the right to freedom of association. If I want to start a bed and breakfast for gay men only, I should be free to do so; if a pregnant African American woman wants to be able to give her child up for adoption to an agency that only places kids with black married couples, she should be free to do so, and people should be free to form such an agency; etc. etc.

    Civil rights laws are not preventing McDonald’s from segregating its lunch counters or firing its multicultural workforce — the market does that.

    Some think received civil rights regime is a holy cow and that no one can criticize the one size fits all fascism inherent in it (its real raison d’etre being to grab power, using previous state caused problems like Jim Crow laws as a pre-text for regimenting people — much like the dysfunctional TSA charade). I think you may find that the same people beginning to study the abuses of the commerce clause, and the same people who have ignored you as you screamed racism at them will now simply start a national conversation about revising civil rights acts so that they no longer violate freedom of speech and association.

    Of course Eugene Robinson, most civil rights lobbyists, and Democratic politicians are, objectively speaking, virulent racists, no matter what his or her color. They have all been selling black children into state warehouses for years, from which they emerge illiterate and dispirited, just for some loot from the government sector unions for campaigns, or for cushy 6 figure jobs.

  36. Well, the writer is wrong about the US Constitution. It was NOT approved in 1778 as he states, but in 1787.

    The US Constitution replaced the “Articles of Confederation” because the Federalists (the power mongers and war mongers of the day) simply could not achieve the power they craved.

    The Anti-Federalists tried to hold the Federalists at bay.

  37. Nobody’s answered me. What’s wrong in the brains of half of you creeps? As stupid as the liberdouchian position is, I get it. But half of you psychos keep calling us (those of us who are telling you that repealing the CRA is a bad idea) fascists.

    YOU’RE attacking the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and calling US the fascists? Serisouly, what the hell is wrong in your brains?

    1. Edwin|5.26.10 @ 9:12PM|#
      “…YOU’RE attacking the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and calling US the fascists? Serisouly, what the hell is wrong in your brains?”

      Edwin, put brain in gear, assuming you have one.
      You’re a fascist.
      OK?
      Well, you’re actually an ignoramus who hasn’t a clue that you *are* a fascist.

      1. You have serious problems. You need to see a psychiatrist.

        1. Oh, how……………
          stupid.

        2. Holy Shit. It’s like Orel Hazard and Max had child. What a dumb piece of shit.

    2. Anyone who believes Congress has the power to make laws is a fascist. Fascist or anarchist. Your only choices.

      I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression “black and white”? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.

      Ayn Rand

      1. And before any of you douchebags start incredulously defending this utterly dogmatic, anti-human, and frighteningly simplistic worldview, consider studying the qualities of actual fascism.

        1. Tony,
          Doesn’t take much beyond what you favor to see fascism quite clearly.
          BTW, did you get through your comic book collection, or are you still using that for ‘definitions’?

        2. I won’t defend it. She propagated some views that are in-line with libertarian thought and wrote some long winded books with some cool ideas (and some fucked up ones. Why do Rand’s heroines always get raped?), but her philosophy doesn’t really leave room from people living their own lives as communists/evangelists/dumbasses etc. Frankly Tony, if you want to go live in a commune in Oregon, feel free just don’t drag the rest of us into it. Rand would attack that decision as evil. I just call it stupid.

          I think Rand was concerned that if people left room for the “graying” of society, it would inevitably creep into public policy and start impacting everyone’s lives, not necessarily in the positive. To some extent, it’s hard to find evidence to the contrary but I prefer to believe that people can leave each other alone for the most part regardless of dogma.

          We get that you read Rand, and became more than horrified, but that’s no excuse to heap your vehemence on those of us who don’t give a shit what people do as long as it doesn’t violate a basic set of rights. But I guess that’s hard to understand for someone whose core philosophy is all about infringing on the rights of others while calling them selfish and evil for any cursory defiance.

    3. You’re saying that institutionalizing discrimination against the bigoted is okay, but private discrimination by bigots is not.

      IMO, this is not an ethically consistent position.

  38. I wish Rand Paul would grow a pair and just defend himself. The cat is already out of the bag on the Civil Rights Act. Does he think he is better off letting the narrative stand that his libertarianism is a sophomoric, unserious approach to government?

    Being against government prohibitions on bigotry, pot, promiscuity, pornography, cigarettes, and fattening foods does not mean you are in favor of any of these things. Not a hard argument to make.

  39. “Is there no room in libertarian theory for ACTUAL REALITY, for HISTORY, for WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENED?”

    If this you’re silly little question, then here’s the most honest answer that you’re going to get:

    Go to you’re local library, or book store, read a book on libertarian political theory, and find out for yourself. If you don’t know where to start, look up Robert Nozick, or Friedrich von Hayek. Both of them are highly influential on libertarian thought.

    Why should do this? Because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You obviously have an axe to grind, and you’re choosing a very elementary way of redressing your grievances. No one who has a shred of dignity is going to explain their worldview to a dunce whose concept of HISTORY and WHAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENED is more simplistic and benign than a commercial for boner pills.

    1. All books on LIBERTARIAN THEORY. I’m talking about what’s ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN HISTORY. What ACTUALLY HAPPENED was that the private power to discriminate was just one part of a massive oppression system against blacks, and that had to be stopped, regardless of what libertarian dogma says.

      1. May I ask, do you teach any courses on what’s ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN HISTORY? Are all the textbooks you use written in capital letters?

        I also forgot that the words “theory” and “dogma” were synonymous. Please! Tell more. I’m now intrigued.

      2. Something that’s missing in much of this discussion, and especially in your rant, is that much if not most of the CRA is extremely libertarian. Just not title II.

  40. This is one of the stupider columns I’ve read. We can’t ignore the past, 99.99% of the statist legislation we suffer under was enacted in the past.
    By 1964 compulsory segregation had been struck down by courts, the issue was coercion on the integration side.
    The “public accomodations” and “equal
    employment” and “fair housing” laws are
    reverse Jim Crow, they are modern day slavery and a total violation of individual property rights and Rand is
    wrong not to stick to his original point.
    Edwin, you are a fascist, which is the prevalent form of statism and socialism in the US and most of the west. That act is really the CIVIL WRONGS ACT AND IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN LEGAL SLAVERY AND JIM CROW LAWS.
    Answer your rhetorical, idiot question
    ?
    Libertarian Guy, you are the exact reason reason Ayn Rand disavowed libertarian imbeciles like you, if people riot we shoot their asses off and the jungle b’s who start this crap will get the message.

  41. “if people riot we shoot their asses off and the jungle b’s who start this crap will get the message.”

    Ka-ching!

    Take a long look, Reason.

    That’s all yours.

    1. LOL, tell me about it

    2. That’s the funny thing about open forums and individuals. We get assholes like that AND assholes like you. Long live sweet offensive cantankerous self-indulgent freedom.

  42. I feel like the trolls are starting to self-propagate around here… It’s like anon-bot replying to itself.

    1. Please try not to use terms you’re not that familiar with. “Self-” propagate is redundant. See, to multiply a quantity necessitates that quantity itself.

      You’re welcome. Please PayPal $25 for the lesson to orelhazard@johnstosselisapowerbottom.com

      1. Propagate:
        “1 : to cause to continue or increase by sexual or asexual reproduction
        2 : to pass along to offspring”

        See… The funny thing with the actual definition of the word is that it doesn’t explicitly specify sexual vs. asexual… So when I say “self-propagate”, I am differentiating between the two and being more clear about you idiots replicating like viruses… See: “like anon-bot replying to itself”.

        Please PayPal $25 for the lesson, and a further $25 for being a complete and utter fucktard to:
        orelhazard@isapowerbottom.com

  43. @Orel,
    Yah got me buddy. I couldn’t resist the siren song of the troll…

    While I don’t claim to be a historian, a brief survey of wikipedia says that the lunch counters at Woolworth’s were desegregated on July 26, 1960, while the CRA was passed in 1964. As far as I can tell, unless you believe in LOST-style time traveling causation (and who could after that terrible finale), the economic boycotts were the cause of desegregation, not government legislation. This is at least one example where what Orel dismissively calls “the market”, and what I would call an actor other than the federal government actually advanced the civil rights cause. This was in fact the example that Maddow presented to Rand Paul who then proceeded to fumbled the ball with wild abandon. There were actually a number of civil right victories between 1960 and 1964, so one might argue that the CRA was a reflection of a change in society, rather than the cause. Of course, since the government in the only moral actor in Orel’s world, this couldn’t possibly be true. Given 50 years changing attitudes (and the death of a generation of bigots), it’s not unreasonable to believe that business owners might not immediately return to racist practices without the imminent threat of government coercion. Moreover, I suspect that Imus would agree with me. Of course, a few isolated businesses might stop serving certain minorities. The difficulty is weighing the real harm (as opposed to righteous moral outrage which is a sacrifice that I am willing to make) that this would cause versus the real harm that the doctrine of disparate impact has on business owners today. How can is possibly be a good thing to prevent a business owner from choosing to hire employees with a high school diploma, and yet this is exactly what the federal government does when it (not the owner) decides that such a degree is not really necessary for a given job. All in the name of “preventing racism.” Orel probably has no problem with this, given that he see racists everywhere. I’m guessing these are more of the “tell jokes that offend his delicate sensitives” kind of racists, than the “sit in the back of the bus” kind. But its all the same right? Its a good thing we have a law to protect us. Hell, a moderate libertarian might be content to keep explicit disparate treatment illegal if these more creeping kinds of intrusions could be rolled back.

    Of course comments like Michael Hardesty don’t help the case. Nor does this meme that the Tea Party is racist (which may or may not have some truth to it), or the fact that the confederacy used the claim of states rights to defend slavery, or the fact that Rand Paul seemed embarrassed of his own position in the interview with Maddow. All this makes the libertarian argument looked like a thinly veiled attempt to sneak racism in the through the back door. Of course, why would they have to sneak it in through the back door? Probably because society now views racism as so morally repugnant that the no one except for anonymous internet posters is willing to to be seen openly espousing it.

    Oh, and “some of my best friends are black.”

  44. Rand Paul and his kind should be the first to be sent to jail if abortion and stem-cell research is banned. After all, all cells in the body contain the DNA needed to create a new human being, and every time Rand scratches his nose he is committing a genocide of potential human beings.

    It’s time for real libertarians to show up, the ones that not only recognize the negative effect of Statism but of Religion too.

  45. Given that the CRA of 64 is a done deal, it is accepted fact, done fini.

    There were 2 distinct parts of the CRA (IMHO), discrimination by gov and discrimination by individuals. Government discrimination against anyone or group of society is wrong because “I Am”. Individuals on the other hand should be Encouraged to discriminate for all sorts of reasons.

  46. Definition of a troll: someone you disagree with.
    How does an ostensibly libertarian website attract so many braindead statist-collectivist libtards of the Edwin variety ?
    Ron, CRA is no more a done deal than the New Deal or the Fed or the income tax, etc., many times.
    How did you get to be such an anti-intellect, narrowly focused hack ?
    Slavery was a done deal for THOUSANDS
    of years……….THINK

  47. Edwin – “those of us who are telling you that repealing the CRA is a bad idea”

    Who said we should repeal it? Not I. Not Paul. You just think we can’t suggest it wasn’t the most perfect piece of legislation without being racist. Hmmmm. Can’t have a constitutional discussion about this with Edwin calling me a racist. Yeah, and I am a dogmatic?

    Dogma – the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged.

    Calling anyone who argues the merits of title 2 a racist is the only actual act of dogma here. By definition, questioning established views is anti-dogmatic. You are truly an ignorant, self-righteous, irrelevant little weasel.

    1. “regardless of what libertarian DOGMA says.” Edwin

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

  48. Did you even make a point David? Your columns are absolutely atrocious. I enjoy reason.com but your bs is just ridiculous. Go write somewhere else.

  49. TANSTAAFL, you should be calling for its repeal, it is a very bad piece of
    statist legislation. Why are you so intimidated by the Edwins of this world ?
    Jarrod, I second your suggestion.

    1. I don’t want to repeal the act because other than title 2, it prohibits segregation on government and public institutions, which I support and prevents government sponsored abuses. I would repeal title 2 if given the chance, but the rest is appropriate.

  50. That’s not true, both the public accomodations and equal employment sections are wrong and should be repealed. Nor is this act necessary
    to strike down government sponsored
    discrimination which was already largely struck down before this act.
    This act is a sledge hammer approach that does violence both to individual rights and the separation of powers in the federal system and of course the same applies to the 1968 Fair Housing Act. These laws don’t merely prevent forced segregation but mandate forced integration, which should be equally abhorrent to so-called libertarians.
    Frankly the gross ignorance of history displayed on this board is dismaying.

  51. Rand Paul is a typical racist Jerk of a Tea Bagger. Only the authors of similar mindset would write an intellectual-looking BS like this to prop him.

  52. What David is calling a mere “distraction” is the fundamental basis of the entire libertarian philosophy – Property Rights! Every libertarian should be using this rare opportunity to loudly defend and educate the public on this most basic priciple, as espoused by Rand! Let’s gut this sacred (and unconstitutional to boot) cow of a law already! The passage of time doesn’t legitimize supposed “settled law”! Grow a pair!

  53. There are plenty of people in this country who can remember when the law persecuted them for belonging to this group or that and believe that the statists are their only hope for safety.

  54. It’s acknowledging that others have made an issue of race, and that there have been consequences. | RAN ran ran ??? ??? ??? |

  55. hank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.xn—-ymcbk0bld8nta.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.xn—-ymcbk0bld8nta.com

  56. Thank you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://xn—-ymcbam7ans2mxa.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://xn—-ymcbam7ans2mxa.com

  57. Something like this may be what you’re looking for

  58. Sweet blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thanks

  59. I won’t defend it. She propagated some views that are in-line with libertarian thought and wrote some long winded books with some cool ideas (and some fucked up ones. Why do Rand’s heroines always get raped?), but her philosophy doesn’t really leave room from people living their own lives as communists/evangelists/dumbasses etc.

  60. Sweet blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thanks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.