![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (tm) called, and apparently I'm supposed to talk about Rand Paul's problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In several interviews given over the past 24 hours, Rand argued that requiring private businesses to desegregate was a violation of private property rights.
By the time he got on The Rachel Maddow Show, he kind of knew that he was in trouble, so he tried to duck and weave, claiming that "you should have a right to bring a gun in a restaurant" and that he was "personally opposed to racism." His attempts to dig himself out aren't working. Personally, I have no problem with guns in restaurants - I am a member of the NRA. But from a legal point of view, carrying a gun is a behavior. It's legally no different from allowing a business to enforce a dress code - a behavior one can change. Being black is something you're born with, and not changeable.
Dr. Paul also tried to argue that Jim Crow segregation was a law. Here he's factually wrong - there were no laws that required segregated lunch counters. There was merely an absence of laws preventing segregation in private venues. There were, after all, black-friendly restaurants and hotels in the South, and travel guides listing these places were published.
Dr. Paul's statements highlight one of the many failures of libertarian theory. Simply put, private individuals can engage in action, collective or not, that is just as bad if not worse than government action.
Now, I suspect he's not a racist. But this same logic would, for example, invalidate much of what the EPA does. If the government has no right to tell you who can come in your restaurant, why do they have the right to tell you what you can or can't dump on private property? Or for that matter, can the government regulate who and on what terms (financial or otherwise) you can have sex with on private property?
It will be interesting to see if he's questioned on issues like this, and see what his answers are. It will be also interesting to see what his Tea Party supporters think of some of the answers.
By the time he got on The Rachel Maddow Show, he kind of knew that he was in trouble, so he tried to duck and weave, claiming that "you should have a right to bring a gun in a restaurant" and that he was "personally opposed to racism." His attempts to dig himself out aren't working. Personally, I have no problem with guns in restaurants - I am a member of the NRA. But from a legal point of view, carrying a gun is a behavior. It's legally no different from allowing a business to enforce a dress code - a behavior one can change. Being black is something you're born with, and not changeable.
Dr. Paul also tried to argue that Jim Crow segregation was a law. Here he's factually wrong - there were no laws that required segregated lunch counters. There was merely an absence of laws preventing segregation in private venues. There were, after all, black-friendly restaurants and hotels in the South, and travel guides listing these places were published.
Dr. Paul's statements highlight one of the many failures of libertarian theory. Simply put, private individuals can engage in action, collective or not, that is just as bad if not worse than government action.
Now, I suspect he's not a racist. But this same logic would, for example, invalidate much of what the EPA does. If the government has no right to tell you who can come in your restaurant, why do they have the right to tell you what you can or can't dump on private property? Or for that matter, can the government regulate who and on what terms (financial or otherwise) you can have sex with on private property?
It will be interesting to see if he's questioned on issues like this, and see what his answers are. It will be also interesting to see what his Tea Party supporters think of some of the answers.
