As a general rule, yes. Unless they are forced to not do so by the government. What the mandated desegregation did was speed up the process. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2009/02/15/the_enemies_of_jim_crow/
No. Did you think that was the point I was making? Some people would prefer the government not be the arbiter of all morals or right and wrong. I'd imagine most of us are proud of the freedom of speech we have in the U.S. We take pride in defending the right of an individual to say what they think even if it is abhorrent to us, even if it is a member of the KKK who wants to say that whites are superior to all other races. What Paul is talking about is just an extension of the same thinking. You (presumably) don't mind that we don't allow the government to prevent you from saying bad things about another race, but you want the government to step in when it comes to people denying services based on race. He just draws his line a little further away, wanting government to step in only to protect the rights and safety of the individual. Is it really that hard to understand how someone might draw that line in just a slightly different spot than you?
One article with a handful of anecdotes is not going to radically alter my position that your statement above is alarmingly fanciful.
POLITICO Breaking News: ----------------------------------------------------- Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul of Kentucky says in a statement: "I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964." For more information...http://www.politico.com Glad we cleared that up!
What's terrifying is that he even had to affirm such a sentiment. Oh, but the tea party's not racist lol...
No, not him actually. But his wank-tastic position in this regard only adds a great deal of fuel to the already roaring fire that is "evidence that the tea party has a great deal of racists within it."
You and the column are making a huge glaring, deliberate omission. Lesser known than Plessy v. Ferguson are the "Civil Rights Cases" of 1883 - which basically held that private discrimination couldn't be legislated against by the Republicans in Congress under the 13th amdt. Basically, what happened was that the Supreme Court pretty much expressly endorsed the positin that Rand Paul is taking here. Here's the reasoning of the majority in that case: Harlan (the elder) was the lone dissenter, and he said thusly: So guess what happened: He was absolutely right. Blacks were left at the mercy of corporations and individuals in the South" and the federal government couldn't really stop them until the 1960's. As a consequence, the Radical Republicans in congress stopped passing legislation against private discrimination, because they effectively couldn't, and Jim Crow laws took their place, and a system of previously existing private discrimination endured and intensifed for 100 years and became entrenched. Another horrible argument that is being espoused in that article seems to be the theme that "Segregation didn't exist until you tried to outlaw it! So it's all you're fault that we were provoked and thus did it for 100 years, bringing pain and misery to all!" That's just beyond stupid and would not be an acceptable excuse from a misbehaving 2nd Grader ("Teacher! He made me hit him!"). Honestly, you are smarter than that.
Ok. It is unfortunate that the Civil Rights Act was used as an example to delineate his libertarian beliefs given the tea party's issues with racism. It does a disservice to his position as much as it does to the tea party.
I'm sorry, but returning to an 1880's "Segregation is A-OK!" view of the 14th Amendment is not drawing the line in a "slightly different spot" - it's just jackassery. Now there are jackasses all over town, but sorry if I hold ostensibly educated people who want to govern to a higher standard of non-jackassery (and I don't feel like believing that the right side won the Civil war to be an overtly high bar).
One more thing- Are you saying that collective action problems don't exist, and as a general rule parties will work toward public benefit to their own private detriment? This is one of the humongous problems I have with Libertarianism in general - blind absolute faith in a very simplified and superficial version of market fundamentalism without recognition of externalities and other barriers that prevent markets from being efficient.
Do you think Paul supports slavery? Do you think he is racist? That's what you're implying with your comment, and that implication is just as much an instance of jackassery as someone taking Paul's position.
It's a bad example, sure. It's also an enormously stupid libertarian position, period. As with the libertarian view regarding the free-market, this view reeks of a combination of naivety and/or the inability to distinguish between theoretical objectives and practical reality. Libertarian philosophy can be accurately described as "neo-feudalist" as a whole, but none of the so-called supporters of this ideology are apparently smart enough or historically educated to grasp the flaws.
I'm having trouble deciding whether he is just ignorant or a racist. Leaning towards ignorant. If you think I'm a jackass for deeming a return to 1880's interpretation of civil rights either profoundly ignorant or racist, so be it. I guess I am not the arbiter of tolerance that you are.
I personally agree with you on that. I just don't think it should be controversial or spark outrage if someone else doesn't.
I think it is considerably outrageous that an educated man running for congress could honestly think that said position is practical or supportable based on the existing historical and legal evidence to the contrary. Am I outraged at the idea? Not really - for a strict "libertarian" it's probably par for the course. However, I am outraged that someone could be so lacking in historical perspective and so correspondingly obtuse as to not understand the connotation the idea implies or the fallacious reasoning required to support it.
Not at all, but the powers of the market were apparently generally working against the racist tendencies of post-Reconstruction Southern business owners, or they would not have needed Jim Crow laws mandating that they segregate their customers.
I would ask that you prove this assertion. The idea that southern business owners "grudgingly" segregated their customers at the behest of the law is absolutely comical.
