Debating the Civil Rights Act question

economics102

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2009
Messages
1,714
I actually get into this debate often with people. Here's how I usually argue it:

Liberals believe the government should have authority to interject itself wherever it wants. As a fundamental difference, those of us who respect the distinction between public and private, and respect freedom of speech and assembly, believe the government does not have authority to tell us how to live as private citizens.

There is no law preventing me from discriminating against blacks or gays when speaking. I think everyone, including liberals, would find it offensive and bizarre if such a law were proposed.

There is no law preventing me from discriminating against blacks or gays when choosing my friends. I think everyone, including liberals, would find it offensive and bizarre if such a law were proposed.

There is no law preventing me from discriminating against blacks or gays when choosing who I date. I think everyone, including liberals, would find it offensive and bizarre if such a law were proposed.

Where the disagreement lies, is that I consider private business to be just another form of free association and free speech, just like speaking, friendship, or dating. I find it personally detestable when individuals discriminate in any of these spheres, but I would find it fundamentally wrong for them to not have the right to do so.

If I have a private business cutting people's lawns, and I decide to only cut the lawns of white people, I have the right to do that, because I'm a private individual and I am NOT a "public service," I'm a private individual engaging in private trade with other private citizens. I can just as readily decline to do business with a black man as I can with a white man who I simply decide is obnoxious or /wants too much money.

If I'm a private business owner with a storefront or restaurant, the situation is no different. Now, if a local government wants to pass some kind of ordinance requiring non-discrimination in commercial zoning, they might have some authority to do that. But the federal government not only DOESN'T have the authority (because they don't have the right to limit speech and don't have the right to regulate commerce within a state), but this is also clearly an issue where it's quite overreaching for a government body of 300 million constituents to step in and make decisions like that.

Now if liberals really want to have a debate over whether, from the perspective of the FEDERAL government, a private business should be considered a "public" place and be governed as such, that's a controversial debate and we can have it, but to hide that debate behind the false veil of this being a debate about who does and doesn't want to support racism is completely dishonest. Rand had it right when bringing up that by the same logic restaurant owners do not have the right to stop patrons from bringing guns into their restaurants.

But I would frame the debate in terms that are more accessible to closed-thinkers: contrast it with spheres that we ALL consider private. So when you're attacked for arguing that a private business is not a public place just because the business owner keeps his door open and invites people to come in and do business with him, the argument back should be, "ok, fine, you know I don't like racism either, I propose that we EXPAND the Civil Rights Act to say that it is now illegal to SAY anything racist, illegal to discriminate based on race in choosing friends, illegal to choose not to date someone because of race, and illegal to discriminate based on race in choosing who is allowed to come into your house." When the other side dismisses the argument as absurd, you just smirk and say "that's exactly how I feel about applying anti-discrimination laws to private business. Are you saying I'm somehow in favor of racism because I want individual choice for who I let into my business, but you're not a racist for wanting individual choice in who you let into your house?"

The idea that race discrimination would be common today in businesses if not for the Civil Rights Act outlawing it, is absurd. Racism is taboo in today's society, not because it's illegal, but because it's a social taboo. Choosing not to serve blacks at your restaurant is akin to saying "I hate black people," and that would not be a smart thing for any business to do, just as an individual is unlikely to make such a public proclamation.

I think Dr. Paul also should have been more forthright about the nature of his argumentation in the interview. Maddow kept trying to get straight yes or no answers, and he was right to dodge them. But he should have spoken plainly about that reality. He could have said something like "I'm happy to have this debate with you, because you and I are intelligent people and I stand behind my views, but I'm also not going to answer your questions in a way that allows my opponent to clip it out of context and make a misleading soundbite out of it that implies I'm a racist or a bigot. So I'm only going to speak in sentences where my answers are surrounded by the full context of the discussion, even if that makes me sound redundant at times. Please don't act like you're oblivious to the nature of that political reality by demanding yes or no answers and being surprised when you don't get them. Unless you're willing to spend millions of dollars airing response ads that defend the out-of-context remarks that you're asking me to make, then please don't ask me to make them by goading me for direct, out-of-context answers."
 
Last edited:
He was running on just a few hours of sleep. Under the circumstances, and being blindsided on an issue NO WHERE in his platform, I think he did ok.

However, we do have to get our own message out, now.
 
I like what he said. If XYZ business doesn't want to serve Joe Blow then that should be their right. It is called property rights. Now I wouldn't give XYZ my business for its views, but that's the American way.
 
Maybe I'm being too quick to compromise on this issue, but wouldn't it have been better (and still being true) for Rand to say something along the lines of:

"In an ideal, free-market society, the Civil Rights Act wouldn't even be necessary, because any businesses would be very likely to fail if they were to start discriminating. We the people would lead massive boycotts against them for their racist policies, and they wouldn't be able to survive. We would achieve the same ends without government having to go in and control what private businesses do.
However, we don't live in an ideal free market society, and our government supports businesses becoming so powerful that they cannot fail and doesn't allow for real, free-market competition between businesses. The Civil Rights Act is necessary in our current market system because businesses become so powerful that boycotts don't matter or effect them. So, I support the Civil Rights Act in the current context, because we don't live in a free market society as I'd like, even though I am philosophically against it's premises."

I would also cite the 14th amendment and say that the problem pre-1960 was only partially based on discrimination in private business - a LOT of it had to do with not enforcing the 14th amendment which grants people equal protection under the law. That would address Maddow's dumb comments about people suffering violence.
 
AnnieCM, I think that's an interesting take but ultimately amounts to a bit of a compromise on principle.

Rand already said on Maddow's show, that if he were in Congress in 1964 and the choice was between passing the CRA as-is, or voting against it because he disagreed with the private sector portion o fit, that that would be a difficult choice and he suggested he probably would have compromised and voted for it.

But there can be no compromise on matters of principle.
 
Why get down in the mud with these people? They want to get Rand bogged down because they know Conman can't win on real issues, he can only win on attacks, personality differences, and FUD.
 
Why get down in the mud with these people? They want to get Rand bogged down because they know Conman can't win on real issues, he can only win on attacks, personality differences, and FUD.

I agree, but the reality is if Rand is going to get asked these questions, he needs to not only have a good way of communicating his response, but, I think the best responses in politics are the ones that turn the question around on the questioner and expose the fallacy or hypocrisy of the question.

What could be more racist than race-baiting? I think the best defense is a good offense and while it would have been better if this issue had simply not come up (from a political POV), now that it's become a target point, Paul needs to figure out how to turn a weakness into a strength. He got a good start on it when he brought up the issue of guns in restaurants, etc, but he needs to hone and refine.

He needs to make the question so uncomfortable for an interviewer to ask -- because he'll embarass THEM by schooling them in response -- that they'll stop asking, and get back to the more substantive issues that we all want to focus on.

I'm sure he will though, he's one smart cookie.
 
I agree, but the reality is if Rand is going to get asked these questions, he needs to not only have a good way of communicating his response, but, I think the best responses in politics are the ones that turn the question around on the questioner and expose the fallacy or hypocrisy of the question.
Yes of course and trust me Rand knows this.

But remember though that when that took place Rand had about 45 minutes of sleep that day, and probably not much more the previous day.
 
Yes of course and trust me Rand knows this.

But remember though that when that took place Rand had about 45 minutes of sleep that day, and probably not much more the previous day.

Oh hey I'm not blaming Rand or anything, even my criticisms aside the way he handled Maddow's interview was impressive I thought. I'm sure he'll kick ass the next time he's asked the questions, because Rand knows how to kick ass.
 
Yes of course and trust me Rand knows this.

But remember though that when that took place Rand had about 45 minutes of sleep that day, and probably not much more the previous day.

Yep, and I think the campaign will take care of it.


--
We run a risk of losing our own little momentum out on the 'tubes by fretting too much about this.

It was a question about an Act passed in 1964. Rand unequivocally demonstrated he is not a racist. There is no question of it. The only thing they could pick at him about is his sensitivity given he is a white male.

BIG DEAL.

We shouldn't waste time on this, and focus on making sure Kentuckians know that Conway is a big-spending, pro-Obamacare, pro-Abortion, pro-Amnesty left-wing nutjob.

I cannot conceive Kentuckians ever voting for someone so against their values, but if we lose focus, we certainly don't help the campaigns chances.
 
If I have a private business cutting people's lawns, and I decide to only cut the lawns of white people, I have the right to do that, because I'm a private individual and I am NOT a "public service," I'm a private individual engaging in private trade with other private citizens. I can just as readily decline to do business with a black man as I can with a white man who I simply decide is obnoxious or /wants too much money.

If I'm a private business owner with a storefront or restaurant, the situation is no different.

Most state treat a business that "invites the public" differently than those that do not. McDonalds and Curves are both store front business. Curves has private membership to females only. If McDonalds were to limit business to females only, they could face a discrinination suit.

There is a differnce if your private business "invites the public" or it does not.
 
Most state treat a business that "invites the public" differently than those that do not. McDonalds and Curves are both store front business. Curves has private membership to females only. If McDonalds were to limit business to females only, they could face a discrinination suit.

There is a differnce if your private business "invites the public" or it does not.

There is a difference, but they're probably shouldn't be. Having said that, individual states arguably have the legal authority to make that kind of provision. The federal government definitely does not, absent its grotesque misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
 
He was running on just a few hours of sleep. Under the circumstances, and being blindsided on an issue NO WHERE in his platform, I think he did ok.

However, we do have to get our own message out, now.

Ummm....folks why don't you wait for Rand to come out with a position on this first? Remember the egg on some of our faces for defending Rand's position on Gitmo only to be told later that wasn't his position? I hope the campaign has the official website locked down right no so that nobody can give an "official statement" about Rand's position on the Civil Rights Act or the ADA until he actually says something official himself.
 
VERY WISE ADVICE! HE HAS NOT ARTICULATED OUT MULTI-PARAGRAPH STANCES ...yet!
 
Last edited:
There is a difference, but they're probably shouldn't be. Having said that, individual states arguably have the legal authority to make that kind of provision. The federal government definitely does not, absent its grotesque misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

The commerce clause is the whole reason this position needs to be defended. It isn't about racial discrimination, it is about the appropriateness of having a 'living Constitution' that can be changed at momentary whim of society, to protect as much or as little as society at that moment wants. Thats sort of Constitution provides no defense. Strict interpretation of this clause is also the basis of the 'limited government' argument against everything from Obamacare to the feds taking over control of education.

Personally, I'd have backed a well written Constitutional amendment on this point (big businesses and chains, banks, etc, might arguably need regulation to ban discrimination -- I do realize this is not the purist libertarian argument, but I really feel ok with it.) However, just reading things into the Constitution is what got our government to where it is now.
 
There is a difference, but they're probably shouldn't be. Having said that, individual states arguably have the legal authority to make that kind of provision. The federal government definitely does not, absent its grotesque misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

I might think that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" clause could be justification for federal intervention and the civil rights act. If a person cannot go where the public is invited, does he have liberty?

That specific argument has weakness, but it is my belief that racism and discrimination are inhibitors of liberty. Liberty is guarnteed by the constitution.

I think back in the 1950's and 60's state laws failed in protecting liberty so the civil rights act was required. In 2010, I doubt federal law is needed.
 
Back
Top