Thursday, May 20, 2010

Rand Paul - The Question on Civil Rights Act

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA


Tuesday was a very good day for those of us who support Rand Paul's Libertarian philosophy of governance. His belief in a limited federal government, fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and greater local control reverberates in most people that understand the values this nation was founded on.

The right to own and control one's own property,  and or business, is one of the hallmarks of liberty, and it is as important to freedom as the right of free speech.  Also at the core of this countries values is the belief in individual rights, and the governments responsibility to insure and preserve the rights of each individual.

Rand Paul, just two days after his blowout win in Kentucky's primary finds himself in a politically precarious spot... The result of his response to a question on civil rights and his belief  the in rights of private sector business owners to serve who they please in a privately held business. The interview segment:





Rand Paul's response to the question has opened the floodgates to an onslaught of progressive criticism. Progressives have a deep distaste for Rand Paul's  positions on nearly all levels. Most of which the majority of America, if they become familiar with his positions, will likely support on a broad basis. For the complete interview and a fuller understanding of the candidates positions click here.

For most, Rand Paul's remarks will likely be taken on an emotional level, at least until listened to again, perhaps more closely. Certainly the progressives will weigh his remarks from the emotionalism that civil rights and discrimination engender.

However, when separated from emotionalism and viewed in proper perceptive it should become clear Paul's remarks are founded in a philosophy that  precludes one from acting in a discriminatory manner towards any individual.

Breaking it down...

Dr. Paul is a staunch believer in individual property rights and the right of the individual business owner to transact business with whomever that business owner so chooses.

He also believes it is not the federal governments proper domain to dictate to whom an individual business owner must trade in a free market.

Dr. Paul also believes that it is not good business to refuse the opportunity to anyone to engage in mutually beneficial trade.

At the same time he finds discrimination and racism reprehensible and disgusting. As any reasonable human being would.

He also believes the federal government has acted properly in enacting laws that prohibit discrimination in the public domain. This means of course where their is public funding of activities, in employment practices, in travel in public vehicles and on public through ways etc.

A note on employment in private business. Dr. Paul would find the enforcement of non discriminatory hiring practices by the government to be proper here as well because failing to do so would have the possible effect of limiting opportunity for certain segments of  society.

No where in Rand Paul's remarks did he defend discrimination or racism. He clearly left no doubt that he is vehemently opposed to both and would, in his community stand up in opposition to both. He would do the same on the national stage as well as his core values demand it.

The progressives, and those who have blindly determined the Tea Party movement is racist and homophobic, will use Dr. Paul's remarks to label him as reactionary, racist, a throwback Neanderthal, or worse...  Rather than viewing his remarks for what they are...  Another very valid view of the federal governments proper place in a free society. One where free men and women of all creeds and color should be able to trade freely with others on a free market.

For progressives to disagree with, and strongly debate the issue(s) with Dr. Paul is proper and good. To inaccurately portray his values and beliefs for the sake of political advantage is evil. And this holds true for all political discourse or arguments.

For the record... I believe there are few in a civilized and enlightened society that have a problem eating with, working with, or socializing with those of different backgrounds, nationalities, or color. Dr. Paul it is clear, sits squarely with this belief as well.

Via: Memeorandum

18 comments:

  1. Look MLK and the Black leaders in the south were smart they understood black power and by that i mean economic power just look at how successful there boycotts were on a economic front as an example the Bus boycotts. Maddow and Jack Conway insult MLK,Rosa parks and all the black leaders when they point to big government namely white elderly democrats as the saviors of the black people. Obama used this successfully against Hillary Clinton during the primary.

    If Rand was better at debating he could of owned Maddow on this and turned it around.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I saw this and responded over at LCR. I'm sure the nuts at think progress had a field day with that one.

    I agree with every single word he said, but unfortunately, he is talking to a nation of voters who are products of our progressive public schools.

    The opposite of progressivism is not conservatism, it is libertarianism.

    They will go after him mercilessly since he is a threat to them. His analogy that used the first amendment was a brilliant, as it cuts to the core of progressivism: "You can have the freedoms we say you can have" vs. libertarianism's You own your own property and your own actions. Your right to swing your fist stops at the next guy's nose.

    Liberals can't stand that because they think they can control and manage all human behavior. This despite millennia of evidence to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is because of folks like Ron,and his son Rand Paul that I left the GOP,and now embrace the libertairian ideals, even if I am still just a little l libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree heartily with Dr. Paul, though if he finds the enforcement of non-discriminatory hiring practices by the government to be proper, that's where I would have to vehemently disagree.

    Making decisions based on race is not just immoral, it's stupid. "Race" is not a scientific concept, but rather a political concept. I do everything I can to stay away from and fight against people and organizations that embrace such philosophies, whether it's the KKK or La Raza.

    However, the right to obtain, create, and control property is a fundamental right, and is a requirement to the maintenance of our rights to life and liberty. A private company is private property. I have the right to do whatever I want with my own company (if I owned one, of course), even something as moronic as not hiring people because of their skin color, as long as I am not killing/directly harming people physically, physically enslaving people, or taking away people's property directly or through fraud.

    Denying employment based on "race" (or sex, or religion, or anything else) does none of those things. Overcoming artificial limitations on employment in the private sector for certain segments of society is not the job of the government, but should be handled by private citizens themselves who choose to engage in voluntary exchange only with companies that operate under policies that exclude bigotry in hiring.

    The proper role of the government is to maintain barriers that prevent the encroachment of the rights to life, liberty, and property, not to force private citizens to provide something for someone else . Dictating to a private citizen what he or she must do with his or her private property is merely another form of legal plunder and forced redistribution of wealth, and one of the most common forms of coercive social engineering.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les,
    WOW! Now this is a great post in which we can all sink our teeth into!

    My 2 cents: Mr. Paul is not wrong. On the hand that individualism is paramount versus the hand that all businesses must accept and/or hire patrons or employees based on a government mandate. I see his view as being proper although this opens up the door to accusations of being anti-civil rights. In other words, this is a moral issue, not a governance issue.

    If I own a restaurant, and for whatever reason, I decide to not allow men named Les into my restaurant, then what of it? If I am right, my business will prosper. If I am wrong, my business will fail. Capitalism and free market decides my fate.

    Sure, men named Les might protest me, yell at me, picket me, and tell everyone they know not to frequent my establishment. And that would be their privilege.

    But ultimately it is MY restaurant. It is MY decision. Society, and consumers, will determine if I stay afloat or not. The moment the government comes in and tells me what I have to do....well, none of us should ever have to face that.

    My two cents. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Paul is wrong on the businesses serving whom they want and here's why RN.


    We are all entitled to equal treatment and protection and that includes protection from bigotry. Businesses in this country enjoy the benefits of being here. Roads. Infrastructure. Police and fire protection. Etc. With these benefits come responsibility to fellow taxpayers that help make them possible. To discriminate is wrong and outlawing this behavior was absolutely correct.


    I don't think this will hurt him in his senate race. Jim Bunning is nuts and they sent him back several times.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Les,

    I am sorely, sorely disgusted right now with Rand. He went back on what he said and is now playing politics to save his own ass.

    I won't lie...I feel quite disillusioned right now. I understand that you and Left Coast Rebel really like Rand, but...Les...he reneged on his own words for the sake of politics. Politics, Les.

    Is there no one in office or running for office that has balls to say what they mean and then stand on it, regardless of personal loss?

    Help me out here, Les. Am I missing something? Am I off-base? Did Rand not say one thing and then less than 24 hours later say something different?

    Your confused and disappointed Independent Conservative friend in CT.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >We are all entitled to equal treatment and protection and that includes protection from bigotry.

    No we're not. We're entitled to equal treatment under the law. Racial, etc., discrimination is prohibited in the application of law.

    Further, violation of the right to control one's own property is always and forever far more immoral and destructive than bigotry, racial or otherwise, because it attacks the very foundation of human existence. When engaged in by government, it is nothing less than tyranny.

    Bigotry is wrong (and stupid), but liberty means that we are allowed to be wrong--including doing evil--if such actions do not violate the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. Bigotry exercised in the operation of private businesses does none of that. Just as selling or purchasing the goods or services from a private business is a voluntary, free-will exchange, so is the offering or acceptance of employment, service, etc., to or from a private business a 100% voluntary, free-will exchange. Governmental busybodying in that exchange is always wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >He went back on what he said and is now playing politics

    Unfortunately, that's an element of his behavior in the past that prevents me from being as enthusiastic about him as I would like to be. He didn't say anything wrong in the interview with Maddow, so I would have liked to see him come back at the critics with a sledgehammer. He needs to tell it like it is and state clearly that anybody that interprets his comments as being racist in any shape or form is a complete moron. He needs to not care about getting elected. Politicians are always campaigning. True statesmen and patriots never campaign, but merely state the truth clearly and directly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My appologies for my delay.

    Don - I am too somewhat unhappy with Rand's inability to state his comvictions clearly and strongly and then STAND ON THOSE CONVICTIONS without concern for politics. In other wors his election to office.

    We will need to watch him closely and see how he handles himself going forward. Hopefully this episode will be a teachable experience for him. If not... I guess we find an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bastiatarian - What can anyone add to your straight foeward and spot on comments.

    Your response to Truth 101 is correct and powerfully stated.

    Sadly there are too few statesmen and patriots with the backbone and confidence to stand solidly and consistently on principal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Truth - Again we find ourselves in disagreement. This of course comes as no surprize

    One must seperate what Rand said from one's own emotionalism and view it from the standpoint of pure philosophic principals. Those being individualism, property rights, and the proper role of government as it relates to the first two.

    On this we can agree to respectfully disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Conservative Scalawag - I too left the Republican party quite some time ago and begin moving toward Libertarian principals. Although I remain unenrolled because I dislike party affiliations at his point in my evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  14. SilverFiddle - What he said was right. The fact he started back peddling is disheartening. Lets hope he grows a set of really big one's and comes back with both barrels blazing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon - I couldn't agree more. And as Bastiatarian so accurately stated... he has to not care about getting elected.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mr. Bastiatarian siad: "We're entitled to equal treatment under the law. Racial, etc., discrimination is prohibited in the application of law."

    That agrees with what I said. What's your argument with me?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Truth - Mr.Bastiatarian actually said in response to your statement "We are all entitled to equal treatment and protection and that includes protection from bigotry." The following:

    No we're not. We're entitled to equal treatment under the law. Racial, etc., discrimination is prohibited in the application of law.

    Further, violation of the right to control one's own property is always and forever far more immoral and destructive than bigotry, racial or otherwise, because it attacks the very foundation of human existence. When engaged in by government, it is nothing less than tyranny.

    Bigotry is wrong (and stupid), but liberty means that we are allowed to be wrong--including doing evil--if such actions do not violate the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. Bigotry exercised in the operation of private businesses does none of that. Just as selling or purchasing the goods or services from a private business is a voluntary, free-will exchange, so is the offering or acceptance of employment, service, etc., to or from a private business a 100% voluntary, free-will exchange. Governmental busybodying in that exchange is always wrong."

    I am not biting today Truth. Besides I need my rest now. Need to be back at work (at my real job) at 6:30 PM tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >What's your argument with me?

    You extended the iron fist of the government to dictating what individuals could or could not do with their own private property. (In other words, you promoted a core element of totalitarian collectivism.) You wrote:

    "Mr. Paul is wrong on the businesses serving whom they want"

    Private businesses are private property. The right of the individual to sole control of that property is a condition pre-existent to the enactment of any law, is a natural, God-given right, and 100 times out of 100 supersedes any law enacted, regardless of the degree of popular support for that law. The only limitation on such right is the line at which it directly violates the right to life (including direct physical harm), liberty, or property of another individual. Under any rational interpretation, denial of service or employment by a private business does not commit such a violation in any shape or form, since any relationship between customer/company or employee/employee is a wholly voluntary exchange.

    This is a fundamental Founding Principle, and is the core doctrine on which the United States was founded.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.