5/22/10
Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul appears to have stepped in it when he questioned the validity of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In an interview on one of the national news programs (I heard only excerpts of the interview and so I can’t quote it.), Paul was asked something, to the effect
If someone operates a restaurant or a hotel or a store or any type of business and doesn’t want to do business with someone because of his race, do you think that is alright?
Paul then yammered some anodyne comments to the effect that while he questioned the Act’s constitutionality, he thought its aims were good and he wouldn’t move, or vote to repeal it. Wow…what bravery.
While I can’t tell Dr. Paul what to say, I can tell my readers how I would have answered that question:
No, I don’t think it’s right to discriminate against people on the basis of their race. It makes neither moral nor business sense. But that doesn’t mean it should be illegal. There are a lot of things I don’t think are right, e.g., .smoking, gambling, “gentlemen’s” clubs, prime time network television, but that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. If everything I think is wrong were illegal, most people would find this world a very boring place. And if everything I thought was worthwhile and salubrious were made mandatory, most people, including yours truly, would find this world not necessarily boring but downright frightening.
And while one might argue that we are not discussing the opinions of one person on the merits of certain activities or beliefs, but, rather, the opinions of the majority of the people on the merits of certain activities or beliefs, remember that the Constitution was, contrary to popular opinion, not designed to ratify the decisions of the majority but rather to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority.
Dr. Paul’s comments on BP could almost as easily be defended by saying something like
Damn right it’s un-American for the president of the United States to be saying he will be “stepping on the neck” of a corporation. And it seems to be wildly popular to jump all over BP in this case but, so far, exonerate the politicians and other government bureaucrats who have taken BP’s money and seemingly done BP’s bidding when it comes to safety regulations. Should we limit our criticism to the private players when such tragedies occur? Doesn’t government, and its coziness with those private players, deserve some of the blame? It is indeed when private corporations are able to co-opt the overextended power of government that such tragedies occur.
At least that’s what I would have said. Maybe Dr. Paul should look me up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your stance is that you don't believe that everything you think is wrong should be illegal. But is there anything you think is wrong that should be illegal? Because once you agree that some wrong things should be illegal, then you have to have a system to determine which wrong things should be illegal, and you can't opt out of the ones you don't like on principle, unless you're willing to pay the consequences.
For Rand Paul, the consequence has been that he looked like out-of-touch, over-his-head, racially insensitive naif for a couple of days, and then he decided it was more expedient to look like a reality-denying, tap-dancing, john mccainish "i never said i was a maverick" fool.
5/25/10
Clearly, those “wrong” things that have a reasonably direct negative impact on others should be illegal. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but that IS the basic answer. And the definition of having “a reasonably direct impact on others” should be tight. Is that sufficiently systematic? Probably not. And since we don’t live in some kind of a libertarian paradise, we have to have a more refined system for determining what should be illegal and what should be legal. In any case, that “system” should not boil down to “what the majority considers wrong.” What would be the point of the Bill or Rights, or any individual rights, in such a case?
Your comment regarding Rand Paul’s looking like a (as you so artfully put it)
“…reality-denying, tap-dancing, john mccainish ‘i never said i was a maverick’ fool”
is spot-on. The man needs a better speechwriter (or advisors), a little backbone, and a certain speed on his feet. Poseurs and lightweights we have plenty of in our system; I’m still hoping that Dr. Paul is different.
Thanks for reading and commenting, as always.
***
the i-p says...
Clearly, those “wrong” things that have a reasonably direct negative impact on others should be illegal.
***
Since this brouhaha started with the Civil Rights Act, I would argue that denying people access to commerce, freedom of travel, voting, etc., because of the color of their skin is "a reasonably direct negative impact" that wasn't a close call in 1964 and isn't a close call now. And not just a negative impact on those of the "wrong" skin color: It has had a negative impact on everybody in a society
5/25/10
In the case of voting, you are clearly correct. The GOVERNMENT, state, local, and federal, should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone, and, since the government controls voting, no one should be denied the right to vote based on race, skin color, gender, etc. Note that one of the objects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to clearly state (reiterate, really) that state governments could not restrict people’s right to vote; it was a brake on governments’ efforts to restrict people’s rights based on their race. In that sense, the CRA was a piece of legislation any libertarian, including Rand and Ron Paul, could love. Rand Paul could have pointed that out, but he didn’t.
The other examples you cite are closer calls. “Commerce, freedom to travel,” etc….are these being denied to people if certain businesses decide to deny service to them? If one airline decides to refuse service to, say, people of Irish descent, are my fellow sons of the auld sod denied the right to travel? Can’t we fly another airline, hop on the bus, take the train, or drive? If a store refuses to serve Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Greek-, or Turkish-Americans, can’t they shop elsewhere? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to shop anywhere they want, eat anywhere they want, or travel by whatever means they like. I suppose you could also argue that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to deny service to other people, but the Constitution does not enumerate rights, but, rather, restricts restrictions on rights, if you will. And nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted the right to tell people how to run their businesses.
Still, you make a good argument when you say that denying people services, business, etc. has, as I put it, "a reasonably direct negative impact" on those who are denied and that, therefore, by the criteria I laid out, the government may have the right to forbid denial of service based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
As a practical matter in today’s society, these are moot points. What sane businessperson would turn away business for reasons as trivial as a person’s ethnicity or race? Doubtless there are some whose sanity would be questioned who would do so, but stewing in their own irrational hate, and wallowing in the attendant handicaps they place on their own businesses, would seem to exact a far more onerous toll on these types than that placed on the people who would not be allowed to patronize their “services.”
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Post a Comment