Can Rand Paul break past controversy over Civil Rights Act comments?

[Working Poor]

You're 100% correct. It wouldn't matter if Rand's defended his comments on Maddow's show all those years ago with the most irrefutable argument known to man. The Progressives in the media would frame him as a racist and could potentially destroy any progress he's made with African-Americans over the years.

Rand should have never said anything about it, honestly. I understand we all have our principals but seeing as this is politics, Rand should have just kept his mouth shut about his opposition to any portion of the CRA. This will be brought up by the Progressive media, and you won't see it framed as "Rand Paul opposes private-property section in Civil Right Act," or w/e his stance really is. They'll frame it as "Rand Paul opposes Civil Rights Act." Seeing as Rand will be a big target as it is, I wish he wouldn't have given the Progressives such ammo.

I wish he had not discussed this with Rachel Madcow and they will bring this up every time he is on the news. I hope he can get in front of it some how but it will be extremely difficult.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There is a difference between discrimination based on race vs. discrimination period. There are many forms of discrimination that are allowable, that either have not been used to oppress people, or are based on something that the subject has control over. Race doesn't meet either of those criteria. The CRA does not ban all discrimination. Again, the *only* thing we are debating is discrimination due to race. Put all other "property rights" off to the side, because no one is attacking them.

Here's the point, it is illegitimate to prevent someone from engaging in any peaceful act, including discrimination on any grounds.

That includes, but is hardly limited to, discrimination based on race.

And the history is completely irrelevant to this principle.

 

[LibertyEsq]

There is a really simple solution and I hope someone close to Paul reads this or has already thought of it:

He can just say "I'm just against a few of the things the law led to, like affirmative action."

His position instantly goes from an unpopular to an at worst neutral one with the American people (see http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ll-affirmative-action-support-at-historic-low )

From a political perspective, Rand should never go on the defensive and say "I was never really against the Civil Rights Act," etc. Just instantly turn the negative into a positive...

And before you yell at me, I am with Rand on his philosophical stance, he can just explain it in a very diplomatic way that won't get him constantly attacked by MSNBC

 

[Working Poor]

Did the CRA take from our ability to discriminate against the government entering into our private property?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There is a really simple solution and I hope someone close to Paul reads this or has already thought of it:

He can just say "I'm just against a few of the things the law led to, like affirmative action."

His position instantly goes from an unpopular to an at worst neutral one with the American people (see http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...ll-affirmative-action-support-at-historic-low )

This is actually a pretty simple way to deflect the matter, and it sounds similar to the way Rand often moves the ball down the field to go past the framing. Instead of the talk being parked at "opposed CRA, must be racist" we are instead talking about its negative consequences. If Rand then rolls the conversation to what he wants to do with regards to prison reform, it can move beyond the trap set for him by the "you must give verbal tribute to one of statism's greatest hits" crowd.

 

[jmdrake]

I understand that, but nobody is saying the ENTIRE CRA was a bad idea. Absolutely no libertarian is in favor of either the Federal or state governments discriminating. A libertarian might say that the Feds shouldn't interfere with state governments discriminating but I'm not going there.

Right. The point that I'm making is that there is a difference between private discrimination that just happened naturally and private discrimination that happened as a result o force. As an extreme example take Nazi indoctrination. The libertarian view after the defeat of the Nazis in Germany would be to say "Okay. Now that the government is no longer pro Nazi we'll just take the position that the government schools shouldn't take a position for or against Nazism and the Nazi's should be allowed to compete in the free marketplace of ideas just like everybody else." That's not what Germany ended up doing. And while I don't agree with state suppression of Nazi speech in Germany, I understand it based on the context.

I agree with you here. The thing is, though, that the CRA is an emotional means to make it out like the rest of that stuff is justified, if that makes sense.

No. The other stuff was already taken out. And fighting against the CRA actually bolsters the stuff that you are against. You cause a reaction from people that might agree with you on property rights if you approached them a different way which is basically a "fuck you if that's what you are for" reaction. Really, this movement would be better off with everyone wearing "9/11 is an inside job" t-shirts than it would be with people trying to make hay over the civil rights act.

Why not just fight for repeal now?

Because that's a meaningless retarded fight that will do nothing to improve the quality of life of anyone and will needlessly antagonize a lot of people. If this movement decides to go full retard that way I might as well leave it and fight for things I care about like 9/11 truth. Seriously, trying to repeal the CRA is the single most asinine idea that regularly gets pushed in General Politics. The most you would win if you were successful, and you wouldn't be successful, is the right to do something that neither you nor most Americans would want to do anyway. It wouldn't restore property rights. As long as there are property taxes you don't own your property anyway. It wouldn't end Federal involvement in private business. Overturning Wickard v. Filburn is what would have to happen to do that. All it would do is make you feel like you've achieved something when you actually didn't achieve squat. But again, it wouldn't pass anyway. If you want to waste your time with doing that fine. But I won't be involved with such foolishness.

Or even don't, if you don't want to. I'm not saying its the most important fight ever. I'm just saying that a repeal (of the specfic sections that deal with private discrimination rather than government discrimination) is justified and should ultimately be done. If you want to fight some other battle first, I'm more than OK with that.

Ummmm...I don't concerned if you're not okay with with my position. It's a fight that I never have any intention of joining. If it ever becomes a focal point of this movement, I will go elsewhere and work on things that I feel are actually important. In the unlikely event that it actually gains traction, I will neither support nor oppose it. It's irrelevant.

Look at it this way. You and I both agree that the government should not be involve in marriage. But some in this movement want to advocate for "marriage equality" in the interim. I see that as a waste of time that would not only waste limited resource but also needlessly antagonize potential allies. I see the CRA in the same light. I'm willing to go for the jugular of Federal power and push to overturn Wickard v. Filburn. I have no desire to be a part of any effort against the CRA. Not now, not ever.

I don't know either, but I think it would have happened eventually, seeing the severe illogic of racism.

Freedom, as we know it, has been but a short blip on the sea of time. The American experiment is still younger than most empires before it. I don't think racism and segregation would have just "gone away" without some kind of concerted effort any more than I think the federal reserve will just "go away". How illogical is fiat currency?

YOu misunderstood. I said someone who doesn't UNDERSTAND the argument in question is not sane/intelligent. There are people (not you, of course) who will read what I wrote and just say "He's a racist" or "he hates black people" or something like that. Those are the people who I am saying are morons. If you understand that I'm not advocating racism, that my position is based on a desire to uphold private property rights, and you still disagree I would not say you are insane/unintelligent per say.

That's just it. The CRA was not my introduction to libertarian philosophy. If it was I might have come to the same conclusion, not because I wasn't sane but because I had a different perspective. Really, I was already a rock solid Ron Paul supporter before I, on my own, looked up his view on the CRA. And that's why I keep calling this yesterday's fight. Nobody benefits from it an it turns potential supporters away. You could get people to support your view on property rights without making the CRA an issue.

How about just right to discriminate period?

The CRA covers race and gender discrimination. I doesn't cover "discrimination period." I don't know why you and others keep coming back to that straw man argument. If you want to reach people about property rights, talk to them about property rights that are actually restricted by the Federal government and they give a crap about. Or at the very least talk about property rights that the might be in danger of losing. There is absolutely no danger of someone being forced to serve someone in KKK robes. It's a stupid argument. And I question the sanity of those who continue to try to make it.

Jim Crow wasn't legalized discrimination, it was enforced discrimination. Nobody is advocating bringing back Jim Crow. And, for that matter, I don't know of anyone who wants the government to discriminate against gays. There probably are some in the GOP, but I certainly don't.

Jim Crow was both. It was government forced public discrimination and KKK and societal enforced private discrimination. One positive thing the CRA is that it gave political cover to private businesses who wanted to end discrimination anyway but were afraid to do so. After the CRA passed they were able to tell the local klan thugs "I don't like this any more than you do. But I can't fight the Federal government." Now should they have been brave enough to stand up to bigotry without the CRA? Of course. But everyone isn't like that.

This is a trickier issue, and I guess it comes down to how one interprets amendment 14. On the one hand, I don't really like the precedent that the Feds can do this. On the other hand, it was public property and so the discrimination in question was clearly unacceptable.

I wouldn't fight this one. Because it isn't an issue of principle. The private property issue is.

No discrimination on race is acceptable. The question is what to do about it? I have seen people on this forum argue (years ago and most do not post here anymore) that groups of people should have the right to organize their society however they choose including in a discriminatory fashion. Where do you draw the line? Does the homeowners association which passes covenants, that are enforceable by law, that blacks can't live in a particular neighborhood have a right to do so? After all, "freedom of association". If enough neighborhood associations pass such restrictive covenants, you have defacto public/private segregation. Is that wrong?

Private property rights are important and they should not be tainted with what is effect a push for a right to be racist. No I'm not saying your racist. I'm saying there are better ways to push for that. That said, insanity is me continuing to argue with you about this. Enjoy the thread.

 

[MaxPower]

Within the world of the US political mainstream, the Civil Rights Act is a holy document, and opposition to it-- or any part of it-- is tantamount to excommunicable heresy. The emotional weight behind this subject is so great that there is no way for reasoned argument to be calmly heard and fairly absorbed. Back in 2010, when Rand was pressed on the matter, he was initially evasive, refused to give a straight answer regarding his position on the public accommodations title and whether or not he would have voted for the overall bill, and tried to engage his interviewers (the Courier-Journal writer and then Maddow) in subdued academic discussion about the nature of property rights and the relationship between the government and private businesses. This very gentle, non-committal, anti-inflammatory approach to the issue was met with a downright hysterical media uproar, to the point at which MSNBC was running segments at a rate of more than one per hour in their midday line-up about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act in the days following the Maddow interview, and prominent Republican politicians (Steele, McConnell, even DeMint) were coming out to pointedly distance themselves from Rand's statements. Rand himself caved in and went on Wolf Blitzer's show to declare that he "would have voted 'yes'" on the Civil Rights Act, and later he (or likely, I think, Jesse Benton/the campaign writing from his perspective) stated in a newspaper survey that he supported laws prohibiting private businesses from discriminating based on race. I found this dishonest flip-floppery quite irksome, but it must be admitted that if Rand had instead done the opposite, dug in his heels, and defended a libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act in the middle of the civic religion and hyper-racially-sensitive political climate which surrounded him, and under the kind of intense media focus it was receiving at the time, it would have come to dominate his entire campaign and defined his political identity.

Now, a man of utter candor and consistency like Ron Paul stands up and acknowledges what he believes even in the face of ridicule and ostracism, but it is for things like this that he always was, and still is, a political heretic and excommunicant from mainstream electoral politics. Rand clearly places much more emphasis on electoral and legislative success than his father did, and if he intends to continue to do so, he does need to run from questioning or criticizing anything about a bill like this one.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Right. The point that I'm making is that there is a difference between private discrimination that just happened naturally and private discrimination that happened as a result o force. As an extreme example take Nazi indoctrination. The libertarian view after the defeat of the Nazis in Germany would be to say "Okay. Now that the government is no longer pro Nazi we'll just take the position that the government schools shouldn't take a position for or against Nazism and the Nazi's should be allowed to compete in the free marketplace of ideas just like everybody else." That's not what Germany ended up doing. And while I don't agree with state suppression of Nazi speech in Germany, I understand it based on the context.

Well, the ideal would be that the government wouldn't exist anyway. How much could nazis do in that context?

Banning pro-nazi speech isn't acceptable, no matter the utilitarian reason you might feel like doing so.

No. The other stuff was already taken out. And fighting against the CRA actually bolsters the stuff that you are against. You cause a reaction from people that might agree with you on property rights if you approached them a different way which is basically a "fuck you if that's what you are for" reaction. Really, this movement would be better off with everyone wearing "9/11 is an inside job" t-shirts than it would be with people trying to make hay over the civil rights act.

I don't really care about the 9/11 thing one way or another. Either way the US government is screwed up.

Because that's a meaningless retarded fight that will do nothing to improve the quality of life of anyone and will needlessly antagonize a lot of people. If this movement decides to go full retard that way I might as well leave it and fight for things I care about like 9/11 truth. Seriously, trying to repeal the CRA is the single most asinine idea that regularly gets pushed in General Politics. The most you would win if you were successful, and you wouldn't be successful, is the right to do something that neither you nor most Americans would want to do anyway. It wouldn't restore property rights. As long as there are property taxes you don't own your property anyway. It wouldn't end Federal involvement in private business. Overturning Wickard v. Filburn is what would have to happen to do that. All it would do is make you feel like you've achieved something when you actually didn't achieve squat. But again, it wouldn't pass anyway. If you want to waste your time with doing that fine. But I won't be involved with such foolishness.

I don't think we'd succeed in repealing income or property taxes either. Does this mean we shouldn't try?

Ummmm...I don't concerned if you're not okay with with my position. It's a fight that I never have any intention of joining. If it ever becomes a focal point of this movement, I will go elsewhere and work on things that I feel are actually important. In the unlikely event that it actually gains traction, I will neither support nor oppose it. It's irrelevant.

Look at it this way. You and I both agree that the government should not be involve in marriage. But some in this movement want to advocate for "marriage equality" in the interim. I see that as a waste of time that would not only waste limited resource but also needlessly antagonize potential allies. I see the CRA in the same light. I'm willing to go for the jugular of Federal power and push to overturn Wickard v. Filburn. I have no desire to be a part of any effort against the CRA. Not now, not ever.

I don't really see this as comparable. "Marriage equality" expands the power of the government. A repeal of the CRA would make the government smaller. Big difference.

Freedom, as we know it, has been but a short blip on the sea of time. The American experiment is still younger than most empires before it. I don't think racism and segregation would have just "gone away" without some kind of concerted effort any more than I think the federal reserve will just "go away". How illogical is fiat currency?

Well, very logical for TPTB. Not so much for the rest of us. I see no reason there couldn't have been a concentrated social effort to end segregation without government involvement.

That's just it. The CRA was not my introduction to libertarian philosophy. If it was I might have come to the same conclusion, not because I wasn't sane but because I had a different perspective. Really, I was already a rock solid Ron Paul supporter before I, on my own, looked up his view on the CRA. And that's why I keep calling this yesterday's fight. Nobody benefits from it an it turns potential supporters away. You could get people to support your view on property rights without making the CRA an issue.

My view on property rights includes the right to discriminate for any reason. If there are ANY restrictions on the right to discriminate, one is being denied the right to exercise property rights.

The CRA covers race and gender discrimination. I doesn't cover "discrimination period." I don't know why you and others keep coming back to that straw man argument. If you want to reach people about property rights, talk to them about property rights that are actually restricted by the Federal government and they give a crap about. Or at the very least talk about property rights that the might be in danger of losing. There is absolutely no danger of someone being forced to serve someone in KKK robes. It's a stupid argument. And I question the sanity of those who continue to try to make it.

That's not the point of the argument. The point is that we want to prevent ANY government regulations on discrimination, not just the race and gender ones.

Jim Crow was both. It was government forced public discrimination and KKK and societal enforced private discrimination. One positive thing the CRA is that it gave political cover to private businesses who wanted to end discrimination anyway but were afraid to do so. After the CRA passed they were able to tell the local klan thugs "I don't like this any more than you do. But I can't fight the Federal government." Now should they have been brave enough to stand up to bigotry without the CRA? Of course. But everyone isn't like that.

I guess we have to define "Force." If the KKK was actually threatening people who failed to discriminate, than that would be a threat and that should be illegal under libertarian law. On the other hand, if it was just social pressure, that isn't something any government can rightly do anything about.

No discrimination on race is acceptable.

I meant "acceptable" in a very limited sense, namely, that it isn't a rights-violation. In that sense, discrimination on private property based on race is "acceptable." It is, however, completely wrong and immoral.

The question is what to do about it? I have seen people on this forum argue (years ago and most do not post here anymore) that groups of people should have the right to organize their society however they choose including in a discriminatory fashion. Where do you draw the line? Does the homeowners association which passes covenants, that are enforceable by law, that blacks can't live in a particular neighborhood have a right to do so? After all, "freedom of association". If enough neighborhood associations pass such restrictive covenants, you have defacto public/private segregation. Is that wrong?

HOAs, as far as I understand, are just a mini-state, so this would qualify as "public" discrimination.

Private property rights are important and they should not be tainted with what is effect a push for a right to be racist. No I'm not saying your racist. I'm saying there are better ways to push for that. That said, insanity is me continuing to argue with you about this. Enjoy the thread.

I will gladly say that I believe people should have the right to be racist. I don't have a problem with saying that at all. Now, do I think that would be wrong? Obviously.

 

[Crashland]

Here's the point, it is illegitimate to prevent someone from engaging in any peaceful act, including discrimination on any grounds.

That includes, but is hardly limited to, discrimination based on race.

And the history is completely irrelevant to this principle.

Any peaceful act? Using your own spray paint to vandalize something is perfectly peaceful. The limiting factor for where your property rights end is not whether or not the manner in which you use of your property is violent. The limiting factor is whether the manner in which you use your property causes harm/injustice. Discrimination based on race causes an injustice, and especially when aggregated among a majority is an egregious injustice and an oppression that is way too significant to ignore. Do you think that mass discrimination does not cause harm to the minority being discriminated against? No group has the right to oppress another group for something they have no control over. Any individual participating in said oppression cannot claim that they are simply exercising their property rights without taking into account the damage they are contributing to. I consider racial oppression to be a human rights violation.