A well reasoned argument on the Rand Paul controversy

[jdfreefly 1]

There's been a lot of people banging their shoes on the desk over Rand Paul and his comments on the Civil Rights Act. I read this today and thought it was a rather fair and balanced look at the issue:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/23/jacoby.rand.paul/index.html?hpt=T2

I'm somewhat of a libertarian but I feel pretty strongly that at the time of its passing, the Civil Rights Act was a required intrusion of the government into the private lives of the citizens. While I am very much oposed to such parenting by the government, the reality is (and this is where many of the libertarian arguments break down) the the populace as a whole is sometimes incapable of the rational adult thought required for that kind of freedom.

I think the question that now needs to be asked is, "do we still need this government intrusion in our lives?" Take it further and ask if we have matured as a society to the point where we can force equitable behavior through the mobs financial and social pressures without the government there to enforce it through law, that is the libertarian argument after all.

While I dream of a world with little to no government involvement in our lives, I also believe the reality in this case is we are not ready. I live in one of the most ethnically diverse and socially liberal cities in the world, but I do not have to look very hard to see that blacks, whites and asians are still looking for a leg up on each other and there is a whole lot of the "us vs them" attitude. We could try and remove the legal obligation to equitable treatment, and in many places it may work the way the libertarians hope, but I feel there would be too many places where it would not.

We've come a long way from my Grandfather's world, but we've got a long way yet to go.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[airdvr 199]

Racist!

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[usedtajump 1]

I guess that when the President of the US is called a nigger on this same forum, yes, we have a ways to go.

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[sundevil777 94]

Yes, I think that the criticism that a private business would have if they were to exclude minority blacks or hispanics, etc. would be enough of a force to make all but a few kooks do the right thing. That wasn't the case before, but it is now. I think it is time to allow more liberty for people to be assholes if they choose.

Of course given that discrimination based upon race is condoned if done to exclude whites, not everyone has to follow the civil rights act anyway.

We should remember the 2:1 Dem:Repub ration of the opponents of the act at the time of its passage, including algore's dad, bird, fullbright, etc.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[usedtajump 1]

I concur regarding the freedom to be assholes.

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm somewhat of a libertarian....the populace as a whole is sometimes incapable of the rational adult thought....ask if we have matured as a society......we can force equitable behavior .........the reality in this case is we are not ready.........ethnically diverse and socially liberal cities in the world,....... We could try and remove the legal obligation to equitable treatment.....may work..... too many places where it would not.......We've come a long way from my Grandfather's world, but we've got a long way yet to go.

Pretty much, "I'm smarter than everyone else, and when everyone is as smart as me and agrees with my philosophies, the government should control the dummies. Once we evolve to my line of thinking, then Libertarianism is a great idea."

I seriously question your claim to be a libertarian - this is stock liberal party line speech.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

I'm somewhat of a libertarian

I'll never be a guy who votes a straight party line. I never claimed to be a libertarian but I lean pretty hard in that direction and I am registered as one. I could go on at length and show you the issues I'm libertarian on, and the issues I'm liberal on and the issues I'm conservative on.......but then again, this post really wasn't about me was it?

My biggest problem with the way people have reacted to this is reason and logic seem to have flown the coop. Maddow is acting like someone came in and asked to anally violate her sacred cow. Cries of racism seemed to have drowned out any reasoned conversation on the subject. I felt this article did a good job of bringing the focus to the core issues:

1. Did we need that government intrusion back then?


2. Do we still need it today?

I know where I sit on this, and I'm interested in the opinion of this unruly mob as well the reason and logic behind their arguments.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Pretty much, "I'm smarter than everyone else, and when everyone is as smart as me and agrees with my philosophies, the government should control the dummies. Once we evolve to my line of thinking, then Libertarianism is a great idea."

I seriously question your claim to be a libertarian - this is stock liberal party line speech.

Prior to the Civil Liberties Act, part of the country had adopted a set of Jim Crow laws that systematically deprived a large segment of the populace of their constitutional rights. If the Civil Rights Act is contradictory to Libertarian philosophies, what would have been the appropriate response to the situation in your opinion? For the government to continue to do nothing, and just wait until the white people decided voluntarily to allow non-whites to exercise their allegedly constitutional rights? Maybe in a few more centuries they'll decide to "do the right thing"? If Libertarians aren't willing to take action to defend the Constitution, what does it mean to be a Libertarian and an American?

As for civil rights, perhaps the day will come when there are no violations worth the effort to prosecute, when we will all treat each other "based on the content of our character and not on the color of our skin". When that day comes, civil rights laws will be as meaningful as laws about double-parking horses on Main Street.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

I get what you are trying to do and think you have some good points. Nothing personal, I'm just gigging on the stock text in the background of the post.

"the populace as a whole is sometimes incapable of the rational adult thought"
"We've come a long way from my Grandfather's world, but we've got a long way yet to go."

It's pretty much the rallying cry for the elitists to rationalize their political power grabs.

It would be nice to allow free thought and choice and admire the individual, but.....welllllll.........you know

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

Not needed anymore. The only color most businesses care about is green anyways. Should a business choose to exclude a group of people for any superficial reason, they would likely be publicly shunned or boycotted anyways.

The biggest issue with civil rights in this day and age is it leads to quotas and the like.

Equality is treating everyone the same. Giving additional advantage to one group over another is just a different form of racsim.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I'm somewhat of a libertarian

I'll never be a guy who votes a straight party line. I never claimed to be a libertarian but I lean pretty hard in that direction and I am registered as one. I could go on at length and show you the issues I'm libertarian on, and the issues I'm liberal on and the issues I'm conservative on.......but then again, this post really wasn't about me was it?

My biggest problem with the way people have reacted to this is reason and logic seem to have flown the coop. Maddow is acting like someone came in and asked to anally violate her sacred cow. Cries of racism seemed to have drowned out any reasoned conversation on the subject. I felt this article did a good job of bringing the focus to the core issues:

1. Did we need that government intrusion back then?
Looking back? Probaly

2. Do we still need it today?
Today? I dont think so. There will always be those that try to exclude groups for one reason or another. To that end then there will be those who will say we will always need laws to try and make fair. That makes it never ending

I know where I sit on this, and I'm interested in the opinion of this unruly mob as well the reason and logic behind their arguments.

Not that I beleive it will end. At least in my life time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Prior to the Civil Liberties Act, part of the country had adopted a set of Jim Crow laws that systematically deprived a large segment of the populace of their constitutional rights. If the Civil Rights Act is contradictory to Libertarian philosophies, what would have been the appropriate response to the situation in your opinion?

The Jim Crow laws were also contradictory to Libertarian philosophies.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

civil rights laws will be as meaningful as laws about double-parking horses on Main Street

did you read JD's point about how cries of racism as a PC beating stick drowns out an interesting and also important discussion about free speech

but I'm not cynical about politics

seems most laws today are attempts to fix one wrong with another wrong - and work attempting to improve acceptance and diversity is all really based on conformance - I wonder how long we can go down that road too........

but I'm not cynical about politics

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The Jim Crow laws were also contradictory to Libertarian philosophies.

Cool. But since Libertarians oppose any laws aimed at actually changing peoples behavior, what would have been an appropriate Libertarian response, had they been in a position to actually do anything, in 1963?

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,426]

>I seriously question your claim to be a libertarian - this is stock liberal
>party line speech.

Although at the time it was more stock republicanism.

I agree with JDFreefly in that libertarianism is a great idea, but it's still just another "-ism." And following any -ism too dogmatically is a mistake.

[davjohns 1]

I think there is some good, logical discussion in this thread, so I'll kick in.

For the sake of argument, the Libertarian would argue that the Jim Crow laws should not have been implemented. If they had not, the overarching Civil Rights Act and related laws would not have been necessary. It probably would have taken longer in many areas, but evolution would have recognized Bolas' point. Businesses eventually bow to the color green.

My personal observation is that some people are still as racist/sexist/etc. as ever. The civil rights type laws, however, have made it PC and even legal to discriminate against caucasian males. I would argue that it is time to eliminate legal discrimination and let social evolution take us the rest of the way.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

did you read JD's point about how cries of racism as a PC beating stick drowns out an interesting and also important discussion about free speech

Yep, I did. I also read the interesting article he linked to in the first post.

I don't disagree at all that accusations of racism are used to bludgeon political opponents. I myself do not think Paul's comments make him a racist, he does ask an interesting question. (His comments about dead miners and "sometimes accidents just happen" is actually much more bothersome to me.) But there are two questions here it seems to me. Firstly, was the Civil Rights Act ever needed or justified? Then, if it was needed in the first place, how long does it need to go on before the "cost" (say in terms of suppressing free speech) exceeds the benefit? For the first part, the CNN article suggests that the Libertarian position is to stand aside and wait for "market forces" to correct the situation. Since Jim Crow laws stood for almost 100 years, and were not in obvious decline in 1963, there is no reason to suppose we wouldn't be living with Jim Crow today. Some might say that one more day of people being deprived of basic, constitutionally guaranteed rights is one day too many. Some may say "wait for your turn, the market will catch up eventually".

Is it now time to stop, or at least severely scale back, enforcement of the Civil Rights Act? I don't think we could go back to Jim Crow any more. Maybe the courts could set a high bar so only the most egregious cases would be prosecuted. So-called victims could be required to show that their constitutional rights were infringed, and not just that they felt insulted. Certainly we should be able to talk about it without being assailed with cries of racism.

Oh, and I'm not cynical about politics (or people) either.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

We should remember the 2:1 Dem:Repub ration of the opponents of the act at the time of its passage, including algore's dad, bird, fullbright, etc.

An excellent historical example of the consequences of the traditional monopoly of the two-party system in American government, especially at the Federal level: people were forced to shove their "pegs" (no Bonfire jokes, please) into one of just two "holes": square or round; so if your peg was, say, 3- or 5-sided, you just hammered it in as best as you could.

The racist, socially-conservative Southern "Dixiecrats" of the 1950s and 60s to whom you refer bore virtually no resemblance to the non-Southern Democrats of the 1960s. Strom Thurmond tried to break them off into a viable segregationist party in 1948, but that got nowhere. At the grass-roots (i.e., citizen-voter) level, many (eventually most) of them were part of Nixon's "Southern strategy" who defected and voted him into office in 1968; Reagan solidified this type of voter into solid Republicans by 1980.

Today, those racist, socially-conservative Southern Democrats of the 1960s are now solidly Republican, whereas the liberal and moderate wings of the party have remained Democratic. Thurmond eventually made the formal switch from the Democratic over to the Republican party to fit his personal ideology (and because they cut him a good power deal), while Byrd chose to remain a Democrat partly because he was an economic moderate, but mainly because he'd already developed a solid power and money base as a Democrat and wasn't about to throw it away.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

For the sake of argument, the Libertarian would argue that the Jim Crow laws should not have been implemented. If they had not, the overarching Civil Rights Act and related laws would not have been necessary.

Possibly so. If the North had had the gumption to follow through on rights for former slaves, things could have been very different and we might have had an extra 100 years to shake off the effects of the history of racism in this country. Blacks were allowed to vote and some were elected to office for a few years following the war, but soon appeasement let the Confederacy snatch a sort of victory from the jaws of defeat, and at least preserve much of their old way of life.

Quote

It probably would have taken longer in many areas, but evolution would have recognized Bolas' point. Businesses eventually bow to the color green.

Maybe, maybe not. Evolution isn't striving towards a goal or "progress", it just reinforces whatever is most successful. As long as 90% of the green is in the hands of the whites, and whites prefer to patronize businesses that only cater to whites, there is no selective pressure for businesses to integrate. For that to have happened, non-white purchasing power would have had to increase to where it could offset losses resulting from racist whites redistributing their purchasing to white-only businesses. In fact, "evolution" could easily have strengthened racist business practices by directing more and more cash flow to white-only businesses and away from those willing to integrate.

Quote

My personal observation is that some people are still as racist/sexist/etc. as ever.

I've observed the same thing.

Quote

The civil rights type laws, however, have made it PC and even legal to discriminate against caucasian males.

In some cases that is likely true. Certainly, if in the past 100% of the jobs (say as business CEOs) went to Caucasian males, then even if positions are allocated based on ability less than 100% will go to Caucasians, and they may feel discriminated against. Attempts to redress historical wrongs through affirmative action and quotas is more overtly reverse-racist. There have been threads in the past (that got quite heated) about affirmative action, and I don't want to get into that again, except to say that the debate about "was it ever necessary" vs "is it justifiable today" is pretty similar to the present discussion about the civil rights act.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

Not needed anymore. The only color most businesses care about is green anyways. Should a business choose to exclude a group of people for any superficial reason, they would likely be publicly shunned or boycotted anyways.

Didn't happen from the founding of the country until 1964, and green was the favored color in those days too. There is NO reason to believe human nature has changed, as we see just from posts on this forum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,646]

Quote

We should remember the 2:1 Dem:Repub ration of the opponents of the act at the time of its passage, including algore's dad, bird, fullbright, etc.

“We have lost the South for a generation”; Lyndon B. Johnson, on signing the Civil Rights Act. He was an optimist, the south went R for 2 generations as the racists switched parties.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,426]

> It probably would have taken longer in many areas, but evolution would
>have recognized Bolas' point. Businesses eventually bow to the color green.

Agreed. But having a poorly paid underclass with no rights makes very good business sense to industries that need cheap and easily controlled labor. That's an example where the best business decision is not necessarily a correct (or socially acceptable) one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Not needed anymore. The only color most businesses care about is green anyways. Should a business choose to exclude a group of people for any superficial reason, they would likely be publicly shunned or boycotted anyways.

Didn't happen from the founding of the country until 1964, and green was the favored color in those days too. There is NO reason to believe human nature has changed, as we see just from posts on this forum.

The general greed is nowhere near what it is now. People who built up and ran businesses were far less likely to risk destroying them just to gain additional short term market share.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,426]

>The general greed is nowhere near what it is now.

Are you seriously saying that greed is a relatively new thing?

>People who built up and ran businesses were far less likely to risk
>destroying them just to gain additional short term market share.

To go back to the beginning, google "Dutch Tulip Bubble of 1637." The Dutch were paying insanely high prices for tulip futures, on the order of 10x the average annual salary of the time for a single bulb. This is one of the first examples of greed and stupidity resulting in an economic collapse. This is, of course, not the beginning of greed; it was just one of the first times it could be expressed in such a stunning manner. (The 1636 creation of a new market, the futures market, allowed such stupidity and greed an economic expression.)

Another example - the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in 1911. Owners wanted maximum productivity from their workers, and thus used clever tricks like locking the fire doors from the outside to prevent workers from taking breaks. That particular bit of greed cost 146 lives when the inevitable fire started.

And of course there were the snake oil salesmen, a profession so common it has become part of our common vernacular. These salesmen (and their relatives, patent medicine salesmen) would sell useless (and sometimes deadly) cures and then hightail it out of town before anyone caught on to what was really happening. Some 'cures' contained uranium or radium, and thus a quick exit was a very good idea.

Greed and stupidity is certainly nothing new, and has been present since the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed nowadays is that we have efficient and effective means of being stupid and greedy on a much more massive scale. In the 1600's it was tulip futures; today it's credit default swaps. But in the end the causes and effects are largely the same.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Greed and stupidity is certainly nothing new, and has been present since the beginning of time. The only thing that has changed nowadays is that we have efficient and effective means of being stupid and greedy on a much more massive scale. In the 1600's it was tulip futures; today it's credit default swaps. But in the end the causes and effects are largely the same.

Which in turn means it is more widespread and common.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.