Let's face it. His stand on the civil rights law issue just endeared him to the Tea Pary and many Republicans in Kentucky.
Actually it is fortunate as it just shows how the simplistic near theological faith in markets leads to undesireable results in the real world-- though satisfying to those who like their politics and economics simple.
So you want the market to be the arbiter of all morals? Still strange to me to see so many Southerners who also proclaim to be Christians doing so. Well, nobody ever accused Ayn Rand of being a believer n God.
I don't know the basis for his stance all that well, but I would imagine that it would be quite possible that he'd have the same position despite knowledge of the fact that without government intervention there would be more abhorrent behavior, not less. In other words, he might just think that the government intrusion on individuals' freedoms is more dangerous and therefore more abhorrent than if society had continued on its path and the discrimination had continued. If that's the case, then it isn't fallacious reasoning or ignorance, it's a different set of values that is driving his opinion. Also, I'm not sure whether you'd disagree or not, but I believe that had government not intervened, our society would have eventually found a way to limit discrimination as it was being practiced in the south. The Civil Rights Act was formed based on an uprising of opposition from the people against those practices. If we did not use government to attempt to solve the problem, that uprising would have continued and found other outlets for change, right? I personally feel comfortable using the power of the government rather than waiting to see what those outlets might be or how effective they might be, but I think they would be effective eventually for the same reason that the opposition was effective in getting the government to intervene.
Objectively, this "fear" of government intrusion has been shown to be nonsensical (ignoring recent "war on terror" civil rights abuses). Accordingly, his value system is, as previously discussed, simply a representation of his preference for neat theoretical sentiments instead of those grounded in reality. While this in and of itself is not a fault per say, it's a particularly poor quality in a person chosen to construct laws and/or design political policy. I think it impossible to agree or disagree. Too many variables. At a minimum, however, the government's stance helped avoid large scale violence and codified the expectation as to what "equal treatment" meant. In that vein, it was invaluable.
In that sense I would agree with you. I don't, but I'd imagine they do. But in reality, who should be the arbiter? I certainly don't think it should be some kind of authoritarian regime, whether that be a government or a religious institution. It has to be the people. Whether the will of the people is expressed through the market or through a government of and by the people, it must be the collective wishes of the group that determines the morals that govern our societies. Any other solution assumes that one person or subgroup has more right to their beliefs than another. I personally prefer using a somewhat limited form of a democracy/republic style of government because I believe it is even easier for the market to be manipulated (intentionally and unintentionally) to go against the true wishes of the people than it is for a good government to be. But I can see how others might feel differently.
This argument is breathtakingly ridiculous. Acording to your line of reasoning, blacks and whites were flocking together and intermingling in business and commerce for 30 years, but then in response to this, the mean old' government passed Jim Crow laws....and derailed the long-term era of tolerance. Really? That is not even close to what actually happened during Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act invalidated by the Civil Rights Cases - which effectively implemented Rand Paul's argument here - was passed in 1875. Why was the Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed? Becuase race relations were at their worst point in history. And would only get worse. There was no naturally-existing movement towards integration in the south - rather it was an incredibly violent post-civil war backlash against blacks by armed militiamen like the KKK starting pretty much right after the Civil War Reconstruction ended, blacks stopped progressing and the South lapsed into its Jim Crow state around the 1870's - when Grant withdrew the Union Army and the South was laissez-faired to do whatever they pleased. Guess what happened for the next 80 years. Honestly, you are too smart to be making an argument this ridiculous.
That is one of the worst cases of selective quoting and misinterpretation of C. Vann that I have ever seen... not to mention a thoroughly wrong view of Southern history. I certainly don't think that C. Vann was saying laws created segregation against the will of whites and businesses in the South, however, there a bunch of pages available for reading on Google Books, so I encourage folks to go read the actual source. That column belongs in the thread about wingnuts changing the history curriculum to fit their ideological biases.
This is an absurd post. Instead of arguing all the inane points, I'll point out that no, there really weren't any other outlets except the Federal government. I guess blacks and civil rights sympathizers could have staged an armed revolt, but that would have been a disaster in the Deep South... just the retaliatory lynchings of any black man in sight would have been horrific. No, the only counterbalance to the Southern society that had developed by the 1960's was the Federal government. You're telling me civil rights would have eventually come to Mississippi over the wishes of the Klan, the White Citizens Councils, and the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission? Really? Most of this happened in my lifetime. Without the Federal government intervening and the pressures Southern whites felt from other parts of the country in response to those Federal actions, places like Mississippi would still have Jim Crow as the law of the land. Hell, wingnuts have even tried bringing back literacy tests recently. I can't believe we're discussing this. This argument sounds eerily similar to the torture discussion... an issue I thought was settled for once and all at the Nuremburg Trials.
That's not what I'm saying at all. As soon as the Republicans left the South, racist Democrats took control of the state and local governments and passed protectionist laws to ensure that didn't happen.
Yes, so how is this an argument that left to their own its own "the market" would have prevented private discrimination? "The market" didn't do that. In fact, the Market basically took the practice of the majority and institutionalized it. The only way discrimination in the South was through government-imposed force as externalities prevented an optimal "market" based outcome.
I believe so, yes. I can't say for certain, and I don't know that it would be in your lifetime, but I do believe that the growing outrage that led to the end of slavery and the growing outrage that led to the Civil Rights Act would have slowly but surely (or quickly and violently) led to a change in the behavior of the people in that area, and equal civil rights would eventually be achieved to the level achieved by Civil Rights Act. By the way, I wouldn't mind if you argued (or discussed) all my inane points. I'm curious as to what you think is so absurd about them.
The racist business owners were at a competitive disadvantage to the non-racist ones, and, empowered by the majority, instituted laws that protected their interests by prohibiting free-association. That is the essence of the Jim Crow laws that deal with private business. Had the Federal Government used the 14th Amendment (which was written for that purpose) to strike down those laws, segregated businesses would never have been as widespread as they were.
I'm sure businesses all over the south are just wishing they had their own Rand Paul to champion their cause for "free enterprise." I heard the city of Vidor has nominated him as honorary mayor. Hmm, sort of reminds me of his daddy's old pamphlets.
So, you think the racist business owners passed Jim Crow laws to put non-racist business owners out of business and protect their profits? Really? That's what Jim Crow was about? Sorry but that is dumb. There was no core of non-racist business owners that the Jim Crow laws were passed to thwart, and you have yet to identify any. Rather,they were passed as a function of institutionalizing a previously established practice in order ensure the majority's domination over the minority. And the federal government DID try to use the 14th amendment to stop these practices with the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Supreme Court, in the Civil Rights cases - citing Rand Paul's reasoning here - ruled against them.
Ugh. There was no growing outrage that led to the end of slavery. That's not growing outrage. Neither is that. What ended slavery wasn't outrage but a Civil War. And really, you can't say you object to discrimination and segregation and racism and then say you don't want the government supporting Civil Rights. If you don't support the remedies for discrimination and segregation and racism, then you can't claim to support Civil Rights because Civil Rights are by definition the counter to those things. This, to me anyway, is self-evident. To think like Paul thinks is to believe something may be wrong and harmful to citizens of the US and the world, but nobody should do anything at all about it.
That is but one person. And why would he have to make those comments if they were not directed towards those who were outraged over slavery? And why was slavery abolished at all? Why not just save the union and allow slavery to remain? You make a mistake in the line "If you don't support the remedies for discrimination and segregation and racism, then you can't claim to support Civil Rights". There you assume that someone who doesn't support one particular remedy (in this case government intervention) must not support any remedy. That is not true at all, and Paul has made clear he would have supported other potential remedies that don't involve the government. That mistake has led you to misunderstand and mischaracterize the position, then argue against the mischaracterization.
So, let me get this straight... racist business owners were at a competitive disadvantage to the non-racist ones. Yet they were empowered by the majority to pass Jim Crow laws. If they were empowered by the majority, how were they at a competitive disadvantage? You are letting your anti-government zealotry get the better of you here. Jim Crow was not the result of government but rather, the laws were a reflection of the dominant society. Here's how one historian summed up things in looking at C. Vann's book 50 years later and the subsequent scholarship it engendered:
Those comments were most assuredly NOT directed at people outraged over slavery. Slavery was abolished because opposition to it became a moral underpinning of the Union effort, Lincoln was in favor of it, and he had the opportunity to do it. That's rich. There was no mischaracterization on my part. There was no viable remedy except the Federal government. For God's sake man, go read some history. Talk to people who were around back then. If it didn't happen at the Federal level it wasn't happening. I suppose you could make a non-real world argument that it would eventually, but there are no real reasons to believe that is so. Tens of thousands of years of human history argue against it. Only in relatively recent times have ideas from the Enlightenment on taken hold in any meaningful way. Heck, even if you take that approach, how can you say you support equal rights for all Americans when your approach would condemn generations of certain Americans to segregation and discrimination? That's a battle that has been fought and decided and I can't see the country going back on that one. And where do you draw the line? Do you say people shouldn't make baby formula that kills babies but no worries because eventually things will work out? Do you say you're against drunk driving but freedom requires that the drunk express himself by driving into other motorists? This thread has taken a sharp turn towards the nonsensical.
Ok, I phrased it badly. They were necessary because of the existence of people outraged over slavery. Exactly, so the moral outrage over slavery did lead to its abolishment. How is what I said wrong? Whether you believe there was no other viable remedy is irrelevant. The question is whether he believes it. He obviously does, and so it is a mischaracterization to claim that he doesn't support remedies for the problem. Since that was the basis for your belief that he must not support civil rights, your conclusion is flawed. Well, neither can Paul. Of course, he doesn't believe that his approach would have condemned generations of certain Americans to segregation and discrimination. That was my belief, and why I disagree with him. You're the one talking nonsense with those analogies. They're exaggerated to the point of being irrelevant. As I said earlier in discussing with SamFisher, "where do you draw the line" is the pertinent question. I assume you support freedom of speech, and wouldn't want the government telling you what you could or couldn't say, correct? That's true even for those who say racist things. So the line for you is (presumably) between that and allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. Paul's line appears to be just a little further. He wouldn't want the government to prevent private businesses from excluding customers based on race, but my guess is his line would want the government to protect people from physical harm or infringements on more basic human rights.
