Joseph C. Phillips
*Two weeks ago Dr. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and the Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky, appeared on the Rachel Maddow show to clarify statements he had made, which seemed to suggest that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For 20 minutes Paul and Maddow engaged in a less-than-graceful pas de deux on the theme of discrimination and private property rights.
Maddow asked Paul whether he believed private business people had the right to discriminate against black people, or any other minority group. Paul responded that once you allow the government to dictate how citizens can use their private property, it ceases to be private. Maddow pressed the issue, asking if the government had the right to force Woolworth’s to serve black customers at its lunch counter. Rather than say, “Yes,” Paul responded with an argument about the second amendment.
In less than an hour, candidate Paul was able to do what the Obama administration, the New York Times, and even the lying members of the Congressional Black Caucus could not do. Within minutes of the end of the interview, the blogosphere was atwitter with claims that the true goal of the Tea Party was to roll back big government in order to undo the gains of the civil rights era and return this nation to the days of “separate but equal.” And now they have the video to prove it!
Of course, believing that free people ought to have the right to do what they please with their private property does not make one a racist, neither is it an “extreme” view. I would argue that the belief that there is some inherent value in one’s race that makes one a better jurist, teacher, or more deserving of admission to college is racist.
It is interesting that those so distraught over Rand Paul’s philosophical ramblings have failed to point out the hypocrisy on the part of Progressives.
The new left is appalled–appalled!–that Paul might suggest that in a free market society that supports private property rights, a business owner has the right to decide with whom he will or will not do business. However, leftists are remarkably silent-even supportive of-community activists urging their black neighbors to “buy black;” Jewish and Islamic merchants who only buy from Jewish and Islamic venders; universities with segregated dormitories and graduation ceremonies; racial preferences in college admissions, or racially gerrymandered electoral districts.
The truth is that Paul’s argument has more merit than the mushy multi-culturalism preached on the left. In a free market, private business owners should have the right to do business with whomever they want. Freedom requires that we tolerate boorish, unpleasant, or even racist attitudes and speech. But a free market also means that consumers have the freedom to discriminate. Business owners will pay an economic price if they incorporate boorish, unpleasant, and racist attitudes into their business models. Most business owners want to be winners in the market place, so their decisions will more than likely lead them away from discriminatory policies and towards serving as many paying customers as possible.
But what if there is no free market?
What Rand Paul fails to process into his argument is that at the time the Civil Rights Act was drafted, laws not only prevented black citizens from patronizing certain businesses, those same laws also prevented white business owners from doing business with customers of their choosing. Moreover, black businessmen were not allowed access to the kind of financial capital needed to build the separate but equivalent establishments on the order of Woolworth’s and other large companies.
Paul makes the same argument that conservatives made in 1964 and thus, makes the same theoretical mistake.
In 1964 conservatives sought to protect the Constitution even as it was being torn to shreds. Conservatives cautioned against a dangerous expanse of governmental power even as those with abhorrent and anti-constitutional views used the power of government to usurp the freedoms of a portion of the citizenry. Conservatives reasoned that lasting transformation could only be had through changing hearts; pubic pressure could be brought to bear and in time white folks would remit and blacks would finally enjoy equality and freedom. Ultimately, Rand Paul’s argument fails exactly where conservatism failed. It is not up to some men to dictate to other men when they shall enjoy their God-given rights. To believe that boycotts and other forms of public pressure were by themselves going to break down the racial barriers in American society is to ignore the deafening clash of the cleanliness of theory meeting head-on with the filth of reality. Theory says that government must be limited to certain specific duties and must be vigorous in fulfilling those duties. The reality is that even a limited government must be powerful enough to perform its charge. Moreover, those within the government must have the political will to act quickly and decisively when the freedoms of any citizen are threatened.
Modern-day conservatives have recognized this error. Has Rand Paul?
I think your analogies are way off and I don’t understand how the “new left” (your favorite term
) is being hypocritical here, but I will say that I think you provide a surprisingly cogent argument. You cleaned it up nicely in the end. (I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day. lol)
Yes he did clean it up well..lol
JCP, do you know what you sound like sometimes? As someone who was picked on as a child and consequently developed a putrid disdain for certain people or groups of. It’s the same sorta misplaced anger Republicans overall have for social programs, environmental concerns, and to a lesser degree, towards people w/a heart.
Private property.
The swimming club in PA (I think) who told the black kids to get out of the pool had every right to do so. They are now filing for bankruptcy. So that proves your point about businesses facing potential financial crisis because of their own discriminatory actions.
What you seem to not grasp is that these same businesses apply for small business(many times from the gov’t) loans to help them. That’s unless you believe that all small businesses have angel donors who privately fund their ventures. These businesses also are private businesses which serve the public. This is not the same as a private club where dues are paid by its members. So I would find it hard to support “free market” principles for businesses that rely (in part) on the federal gov’t through loans, tax breaks or otherwise.
I have no idea which “leftists” support segregated dormitories and graduation ceremonies. So it would have been nice to see a link to the article or some’n since I assume that it happened somewhere in the US. Do you think that people urge others to “buy” black because they are intent on being racist or is it done to support businesses that have been historically challenged in ways that white businesses have not been? The federal gov’t mandates that gov’t agencies “buy minority.” That is, businesses run by women, the disabled, etc. receive special consideration to help these “small businesses.” Do you protest the gov’t mandating that IT (the gov’t) buys from small businesses?
Even in the US, there is absolutely no such thing as unlimited freedom. There is no such thing as unlimited free speech. It just isn’t and it seems as if that’s you error. Freedom means free..but is it really or are you caught up in the particular worldview that doesn’t mesh with reality?
Great, great post. I have to admit that whole “universities with segregated dormitories and graduation ceremonies; racial preferences in college admissions” line threw me off too. Would have been nice to get some references, so he wouldn’t look like he was just blowing smoke out of his azz. lol
I agree. You can feel free to discriminate but, you must register as such so to ensure that you do not get any government help (loans, grants, tax breaks, etc.) You can discriminate all you want and all on your own dime.
Sink or swim, it’s all on you and your fellow racists. Most racists love money as much or more than they love to discriminate. The average racist will find it to hard to become rich relying solely on whites that are willing to be seen patronizing their racist establishment. The darker/more mixed the nation becomes, the harder it will be.
So, go ahead. Ban me from your establishment. We’ll see who cries “uncle” first.
IT WON’T BE ME!
I’m just stuck on the whole, Joseph got massa’s back philosophy. I think if Rand Paul lynched someone, Mr. Phillips would write that we just don’t understand. Oh well. Interesting the that Tea Party has so few faces of color (if any)…now I know who that one colored man is: Joseph Phillips. Wow.
What a crock of bullsh*t this guy is feeding himself. He makes statements about economic theories as if life pre-civil rights movement didn’t exist.
Mofo, before the civil rights movement, before the landmark cases barring discrimination, before the Civil Rights Act, we DID have a system where “private business owners [had] the right to do business with whomever they want.” And contrary to that trash that you wrote, those business owners did not as you say “pay an economic price” for their “boorish, unpleasant, and racist attitudes” they incorporated “into their business models.”
What the hell kinda statement are you making when you say “most business owners want to be winners in the market place, so their decisions will more than likely lead them away from discriminatory policies and towards serving as many paying customers as possible.” Da hell that’s true. Pre-civil rights movement (and even after) private businesses did everything they could not to serve Black people and to a lesser extent other minorities.
We’ve done the experiment where private business and the free market was able to regulate itself from prejudice, discrimination and bigotry and what resulted was folks telling Black people to get in the damn back of the buss, give your seat for white people, suffer the indignity of having their money taken and still having to pick up their meals from the damn back window.
WTF are you talking about? Acting like his foolishness is some kind of novel intellectual revelation.
Institutionalized racism, whether it occurs in the public or private sector, permits business to operate without regard for market forces.
As long as ABC Lunch Counter bars Black people and XYZ Lunch Counter does the same the market equalizes for the lack of Black customers. This JCP is a damn fool of the highest class, and an intellectual kindergarten. What a fuggin embarrassment of skin.