About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, May 21 - 4:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent article!

How long will it take for "The Americans with No Life Act" to become reality?

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/21, 4:34am)




Post 1

Friday, May 21 - 7:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ah yes - that was a good one, Luke... ;-)



Post 2

Friday, May 21 - 2:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw Rand Paul attempting to defend himself - this is going to be really tough for him because the Republican hierarchy will leave him dangling as will most if not all of the conservative spokespeople. Of the few who will attempt to defend him, they will be made in an apologetic tone which like a kiss of death.

Rand Paul's position needs to be defended like Dr. Machan's column does.

It is a good thing when those who are bigots attempt to express that bigotry openly in speech, assembly and in how they run their businesses. Nothing will help stamp put the evils of racial bigotry faster then adding commercial failure to list of consequences of following that irrational practice. Let the bigot who owns a lunch counter and receives no tax dollars, put a "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" sign in the window. The instant decrease in business is only proper. The free market doesn't value irrational prejudices, and when most of the culture recognizes them as evil to boot, the market will become a strong force for making them far less desirable to hold.

Our culture has reached the point where only good comes of these people exposing their mean-spirited idiocy.

Good article, Dr. Machan.



Post 3

Friday, May 21 - 4:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Machan does defend it. I got the article today, and it will be posted next week. Typically awesome stuff. :)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, May 21 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stossel also defends Paul...

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/05/21/racism-and-rand-paul-%C2%A0/
(Edited by robert malcom on 5/21, 5:08pm)




Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 23, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, May 21 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbidding discrimination in private business are correct, then why aren't the supporters of that law who are so apoplectic over Rand Paul's criticism of it just as apoplectic over those who support mandatory racial preferences? The provisions of Title VII that they're defending forbid those as well!

As Tibor points out, the true test of one's belief in freedom is whether or not one allows freedom for forms of expression or association that one finds offensive (e.g., those based on racial discrimination).

In fact, a person who has no right to freedom of association -- no right to determine whom to associate with -- has no right to refrain from practicing racial discrimination, should the government decide to make such discrimination mandatory. It is just such mandatory discrimination to which the old miscegenation and separate-but-equal laws bear grim testimony, and of which the contemporary statutes on affirmative action and racial quotas are a modern expression.

Observe that whereas the original intent of Title VII was to make racial discrimination illegal in private business, that statute has subsequently been interpreted to authorize affirmative action, making racial discrimination mandatory in private business. And this, despite assurances by proponent's of the statute that no such thing as quotas could ever be inferred from it. Consider, for example, the "famous last words" of Senator Hubert Humphrey when the Civil Rights Bill was being debated in Congress:

"Contrary to the allegations of some opponents of this title, there is nothing in it that will give any power to the Commission or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial 'quota' or to achieve a certain racial balance...."

Even more outrageous is that affirmative action violates explicit disclaimers included in Title VII itself. Section 703 (j) reads as follows:

"Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex or national origin of such individual or group on account of any imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number of percentages of persons of any race, color, religion or sex, or national origin employed by any employer . . . ."

If it was not clear before, it should now be obvious that once the government can violate freedom of association in order to prevent discrimination, it can do so in order to mandate discrimination, even to the point of perverting and explicitly transgressing its very own civil rights statutes!

But this is not something you'll ever hear from the people who are now denouncing Rand Paul as some kind reactionary throwback!

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/21, 11:55pm)




Post 6

Saturday, May 22 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
  • Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A11
  • NOTABLE & QUOTABLE
  • MAY 22, 2010

  • Editor Rich Lowry writing at National Review Online about U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul's criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:


    It goes without saying that a Senate campaign is not the best place to hold a seminar on Historic Issues in Libertarianism. Besides, even if I understand where he's coming from, I think [Rand] Paul was wrong (as were many conservatives, including [National Review magazine], at the time). In the historical context, the Civil Rights Act was the last spasm of the Civil War. The South had frustrated the imposition of black civil rights during Reconstruction in a low-grade insurgency that successfully rumbled on into the 1960s. Black civil rights weren't going to be vindicated any time soon, absent the application of federal power again. Yes, there was already a people's movement that was having some success against segregation, but without the Civil Rights Act, it probably would have been decades more of repression in the South, and blacks—rightly—weren't willing to wait, nor was the rest of the country willing to make them. I'm sympathetic to libertarianism, but it sometimes has a weakness for theoretical exercises removed from reality . . . I wish Rand Paul well, and hate to see him smeared as a racist for speaking his mind on what he considers a matter of principle. But the sooner he can put this behind him, the better.




    Post 7

    Saturday, May 22 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Dale,

    That is a thoughtful and reasonably friendly response to Rand Paul's predicament, but it is like many of Conservatism's positions - it is a rationalized way to avoid being principled. That position boils down to let's be pragmatic, and let's allow an unprincipled destruction of property rights happen so that we can make liberals and those who are victims of private racism feel better - as if that would do anything positive towards removing private racism.

    I still see that portion of Civil Rights act is having harmed race relations over the long run and at the same time that it created major damage to property rights, giving government rights over private property they never had before.



    Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
    Post 8

    Saturday, May 22 - 3:53pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    A Chinese buffet near my house was having trouble with black and Hispanic customers ducking out without paying their bill. So they instituted a policy whereby these customers were required to pay before they were seated, while white customers were allowed to pay after they had finished eating. While the restaurant may have been justified in setting such a policy, given the losses it sustained from this kind of theft, it was certainly a bad move from a PR standpoint. The fallout that resulted from the ensuing boycott ruined their business, and they wound up selling the restaurant.

    A more prudent policy would have been to require everyone to pay up front. That way they could have solved the problem without incurring any bad press. In a free market in which business were allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, there might be businesses who did so, but they would likely pay a price by alienating potential customers.

    It is worth noting that public conveyances in the old South protested the Jim Crow laws requiring them to offer separate seating for blacks and whites, because they were losing money from it. Apparently, white and black customers didn't object to sitting near each other.

    What is interesting, however, is that these same conveyances did have separate seating for smokers and non-smokers. Apparently, it was profitable to segregate smokers from non-smokers, because non-smokers strongly objected to sitting near smokers, but it was not profitable to segregate blacks from whites, because neither group had strong objections to sitting near the other.

    The Jim Crow laws -- i.e., government mandates -- were the primary cause of Southern segregation, not the voluntary choices of private citizens or of the businesses that served them.

    - Bill




    Post 9

    Saturday, May 22 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
  • MAY 22, 2010 Republican candidate Rand Paul's controversial remarks on the 1964 Civil Rights Act unsettled GOP leaders this past week, but the comments reflect deeply held iconoclastic beliefs of some in his party, and many in the tea-party movement, that the U.S. government shook its constitutional moorings more than 70 years ago.
    Mr. Paul and his supporters rushed to emphasize that his remarks didn't reflect racism but a sincerely held, libertarian belief that the federal government, starting in the Roosevelt era, gained powers that set the stage for decades of improper intrusions on private businesses.
    Mr. Paul, the newly minted U.S. Senate nominee in Kentucky, again made headlines Friday when he told ABC's "Good Morning America" that President Barack Obama's criticism of energy giant BP was "really un-American."
    That followed a tussle over the landmark civil-rights law, which Mr. Paul embraced after suggesting Wednesday that the act may have gone too far in mandating the desegregation of private businesses.
    Late Friday, NBC said that Mr. Paul had canceled a scheduled appearance on the Sunday morning show "Meet the Press," a rare development in the history of the widely watched political program. The network said it was asking Mr. Paul to reconsider.
    In tea-party circles, Mr. Paul's views are not unusual. They fit into a "Constitutionalist" view under which the federal government has no right to dictate the behavior of private enterprises. On the stump, especially among tea-party supporters, Mr. Paul says "big government" didn't start with Mr. Obama, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society of the 1960s or the advance of central governance sparked by World War II and the economic boom that followed.
    He traces it to 1937, when the Supreme Court, under heated pressure from President Franklin Roosevelt, upheld a state minimum-wage law on a 5-4 vote, ushering in the legal justification for government intervention in private markets. Until the case, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, the Supreme Court had sharply limited government action that impinged on the private sector.
    "It didn't start last year. I think it started back in 1936 or 1937, and I point really to a couple of key constitutional cases… that all had to do with the Commerce Clause," Mr. Paul said in an interview before Tuesday's election.
    Mr. Paul has said that, if elected, one of his first demands will be that Congress print the constitutional justification on any law it passes.
    Last week, Mr. Paul encouraged a tea-party gathering in Louisville to look at the origins of "unconstitutional government." He told the crowd there of Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court rejected the claims of farmer Roscoe Filburn that wheat he grew for his own use was beyond the reach of federal regulation. The 1942 ruling upheld federal laws limiting wheat production, saying Mr. Filburn's crop affected interstate commerce. Even if he fed his wheat to his own livestock, the court reasoned, he was implicitly affecting wheat prices.
    "That's when we quit owning our own property," Mr. Paul told the crowd.
    In an interview, Mr. Paul expressed support for purely in-state gun industries, in which firearms are produced in one state with no imported parts and no exports. Guns produced under those circumstances can't be subjected to a federal background check, waiting period or other rules, he reasons.
    "I'm not for having a civil war or anything like that, but I am for challenging federal authority over the states, through the courts, to see if we can get some better rulings," he said.
    To supporters, such ideological purity has made the Bowling Green ophthalmologist a hero.
    "He's going back to the Constitution," said Heather Toombs, a Louisville supporter who came to watch him at a meet-and-greet at a suburban home last week. "He's taking back the government."
    But to Democrats, some Republicans and some libertarians, Mr. Paul's arguments seem detached from the social fabric that has bound the U.S. together. The federal government puts limits on pollutants from corporations, monitors the safety of toys and other products and ensures a safe food supply—much of which Mr. Paul's philosophy could put in question.
    David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said that in many ways Americans are freer now than they were in any pre-1937 libertarian Halcyon day. Women and black citizens can vote, work and own property. Certain "micro-regulations" that existed before the shift are gone. "Sometimes he talks the way libertarians talk in political seminars," Mr. Boaz said of Mr. Paul.
    "Rand Paul apparently has a deeply held conviction that corporations should be allowed to do what they see fit without oversight or accountability," Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, Mr. Paul's opponent in the Senate contest, said.

    —Jean Spencer and Douglas A. Blackmon contributed
    to this article.






  • Post 10

    Sunday, May 23 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Agreed Steve.  Up in the attic I have saved a copy or two of an very old issue of National Review that did a hit job on libertarianism.

    For many years I was an active member of the Washington State Libertarian Party, supported FEE and many other libertarian groups, and my personal library is stocked with Ayn Rand literature.  But now that our chance has come to use these ideas to make a difference I wonder if the time has passed.  I observe that most (and *most* is important in a "democratic" government) are dependent on "State Capitalism" than are forced to pay for it. 

    PS  Compare yesterday's BarryBama's West Point speach with the one Ayn gave at WP in 1974,




    Post 11

    Sunday, May 23 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Dale,

    I had that same disheartening thought cross my mind (Obama's West Point address versus Ayn Rands).

    I think we see some progress that is real and will, to some degree, be lasting. It is in the terms of the national argument between the Tea Party/electorate and the politicians. The politicians still don't grasp the fact that for the first time a sizable portion of the voters are calling for Capitalism BY NAME. The big gain, in my eyes, is the increased clarity in which the conflict is framed. The degree of horror over the size of the debt, and the push-back against the degree of government control. I believe some of that will remain long term.

    But the special interests won't go away quietly, the Republican party is going to try to ride the Tea Party wave into office and then return to politics as usual, and memories are short. So, I don't see minarchy just around the corner. And the Conservatives are still thinking that winning means a Republican victory and they are uncomfortable with Libertarians (but not nearly as much - now, at least they have to acknowledge them, and they are a little more cautious in attacking them).

    I hope for a landslide victory in 2010 in so far as replacing incumbents if they were liberal, big spenders from either party, or perceived as arrogant. Then some success in rolling back the horrible changes Obama/Pelosi/Reed have made. But I am very fearful that moves bold enough to really fix the mess won't be done - I don't think they will get rid of the fed, put us on a gold standard, reduce spending by 50%, and balance the budget. Yet those are what we need - urgently.

    If they don't fix the major problems, we will have a larger crisis than the last one, and before long, and then I'm afraid everyone but the few libertarians and a handful of fiscal conservatives will go for FDR type of fixes. And the very thing you pointed out will be our downfall - the ratio of people dependent on government largess versus actual productive individuals.



    Post 12

    Sunday, May 23 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    If the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbidding discrimination in private business are correct, then why aren't the supporters of that law who are so apoplectic over Rand Paul's criticism of it just as apoplectic over those who support mandatory racial preferences?

    Agree. But take it further -- why are those liberals also not calling for outlawing personal ads saying the person is only interested in dating people of a certain race?

    If, by a certain liberal "logic", it must be illegal to discriminate by race for something trivial like serving breakfast on private property such as a restaurant, shouldn't it be illegal to discriminate on private property such as Craigslist or an online dating service about something far more important like one's choice of a mate?

    I'd love to see Rachael Maddow try to explain why racial discrimination is OK for the truly important things like earning a livelihood or choosing a mate, but dead wrong for trivial stuff like purchasing a meal.



    Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
    Post 13

    Sunday, May 23 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    In the Rachael Maddow interview with Rand Paul, she kept on talking about majority ethnicities discriminating against minorities, when the reverse can happen just as easily.

    Is Maddow in favor of outlawing an all-black restaurant or jazz club in Harlem?

    Is she in favor of forcing a society of men-hating radical feminist lesbian rape victims to admit chauvinistic sexist men into their meetings?

    Would she favor forcing meetings of Black Panthers to invite robe-wearing members of the KKK?

    And, if private discrimination based on race should be outlawed, why not other forms of private discrimination?

    Shouldn't a vegan support group be forced to invite carnivores bearing bacon-wrapped hot dogs as appetizers?

    I attend two by-invitation-only monthly meetings for a center-right thinktank and a libertarian literary salon -- no liberal statists invited. Shouldn't that be outlawed, and the group opened up to the general public?

    Heck, if I throw a party, and only invite people I like, shouldn't I be forced to open it up to random strangers?



    Post 14

    Sunday, May 23 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
    Bookmark
    Link
    Edit
    Tho I too am in some sense feeling disheartening, especially in comparing those two West Point speech [which, I suspect, were noted by many], at this point will hold that in reserve and at least until after November and consider this as more the 'last hurrah of the olden horde' [tho, too, until ALL of them are gone, there will always remain 'another hurrah' of some degree]... so long as each person exists, that person has choice - and as long as information is available and there from which the choice can be made, there is always the possibility... remember, locusts have their cycles - it keeps life on its toes so to speak... at the worst, it would not be 'the end of the world', only that I live in very interesting times...



    Post to this thread
    User ID Password reminder or create a free account.