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."
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:
