After reading all the tweets about Rand Paul appearing on Rachel Maddow’s show, I had to watch it for myself. I thought I was going to see one of those quiet racists, the ones that use whatever means necessary to justify their stances.
I was wrong.
Instead what I found was a man who believes in a principle, specifically that government policies should not apply to private businesses. Paul stuck to the principle, even in the face of the barrage of questions about racism from Maddow. I think it is clear that Paul is no racist. Watch for yourself.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Paul tried to move the conversation to a broader argument about his belief. That’s where he got me. I thought of my own opposition to Virginia’s smoking ban ~ and how I think that the decision to ban or not ban smoking should be left to the owners of the restaurants. I asked myself was this the same principle that Rand was espousing? It made me quite uncomfortable to admit that, yes, it was. Does that mean that I agree with Paul on allowing, for example, blacks to be banned from private businesses?
Like I said – uncomfortable.
A principle sometimes falls apart in the face of specific examples of its implementation. Too many exceptions to a principle – and the principle itself is of no use. In this case, there is an over-arching question of just where is the line over which the government should not cross? Government intervenes in private businesses all the time. What makes one such intervention OK and others not?
Agree or disagree with Paul, there is no doubt that he make us think. And if that’s his intention, he’s accomplished that.
As for me, I’m still thinking about that principle.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
When I watched this this morning, I thought of the smoking ban, also. I am strongly opposed to it, I think it sends the wrong signal to business people. How can it be enforced? What about hookah bars, can they not be opened? Do they have to spend inordinate amounts for special equipment.
Paul was uncomfortable talking about the lunchcounter issue, but he stuck to his principle and I applaud him.
But if a business wants to exclude all folks named Doug, should I have recourse? I don’t think so, but I would hope that my friends would choose not to support that business, and the market would do its job. Of course, with me that would only be two people not showing up at the business,and one of them I am not so sure of.
Government should make sure there is not discrimination in the public sector, but it cannont legislate to negate beliefs, opinions or prejudices. It would be nice if it could, in my opinion, but that goes against nature.
I watched Rachelle’s interview with Paul after I heard an earlier NPR interview where the issue of the Civil Rights Act was brought up. While all of us agree that government should not have such a heavy hand in defining how owners should run their businsses, certain “intrusion” by government is practical. One of them is the smoking ban. Second hand smoke kills, period. Further government denying a “public” or “Private” business owner, the right to serve whom they want breaks down the walls which would not only segregate and deny access people have to public facilities based on on race, religion, sexual preference, gender, etc. But a business can bar people based on requirements related to attire deterring grown men wearing work boots, baggy pants and ball caps from entering their joint and being a potenetial source of trouble. I think Paul had better clarify his stand on the issue or he won’t be able to talk about any other issue and will lose.
This intrusion is not “practical”. If the government wants to protect us from second hand smoke, not the government’s job, in my opinion, make the action endangering the people illegal.
That is the appropriate measure for government, not intruding on areas of choice.
I realize, for all sorts of reasons, that is not a practical solution, but it is the appropriate one for government.
The little bit I have heard of Paul indicates that he is a total libertarian, you have to give him credit for sticking to his principles. Politically speaking, he has created an issue for himself, he was beaten up pretty badly on Morning Joe this a.m. Ms. Paige, I do agree with you that he is not a racist, but rather a true believer in his philosphy, perhaps to his detriment. This will be a most interesting race to watch.
I call BS on Rand (and Ron) Paul and some supposed integrity of principle. He’ll support all sorts of absurd results in the service of this inane idea that the market is the valid arbiter of all things, but he’s just as anti-immigration as the rest. His libertarianism extends to capital, but not people.
Bullsh1t. Top to bottom.
This comment ended up in my spam filter. I cleaned it up for you 😉
Doh. Sorry about that. )(@*#%@#
🙂
I then think about how many of our public spaces and gathering places are owned by corporations. I remember how freedom of speech is impaired in shopping malls with folks actually being arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a political message.
Sorry but if you are the kind of business that serves the general public in a public fashion like malls, restaurants, etc it seems that discrimination and the violation of constitutional liberties must be prevented somehow. There’s also the new principle that you can’t take a picture on the street that would have a business in the background unless the business gives you permission to take a picture…I would hate to go to a restaurant and be refused service because some of us might be the wrong ethnicity, religion or sexual persuasion. Personally, I would find it difficult to be a restaurant owner I would hate to be a restaurant owner and have members of the KKK come in with their white robes and ask to be served.
I agree it’s definitely lots of food for thought.
Of course, it could just mean that you’re wrong about the smoking ban 🙂
~
As for Rand, I think TNC nailed it here – he’s “too ignorant to be embarrassed.”
MB, I think TNC is ignorant in understanding Rand Paul’s position and his discomfort at knowing he’s going to get blasted for sticking to principle that in no way condones racism. A “gotcha moment” of no true value. In fact, as I would hope the public at large would do, Rand would boycott any company that held such a policy. He openly condemned racism and stuck to private property rights, freedom of association, and against “Big Brother” thought police.
He believes you have the right to be a fool. He also believes in the 1st amendment with which to call out that fool, and the freedom to not support a hateful business or entity.
In a free and enlightened market, a racist company or business that refused to serve somebody named Doug, would pay the price of going under.
Only a few years ago, I don’t know that Rand’s logical principle would have been feasible. Communication among the masses was not in place. We didn’t have the internet and youtube that we have today. Just a few years ago Martin Luther King Jr. hadn’t yet persuaded the white majority that it was ok to face down their hateful and racist friends/neighbors and stand for justice, freedom, and humanity. America may not be perfect, but we have come such a long way and indeed evolved as a society. You now pay a hefty price economically and of reputation by wielding hate at someone for the color of their skin.
A few years ago when Obama was being talked about as a presidential candidate, I was speaking to a co-worker (who happend to have a darker level of skin pigmentation)and he stood firm that America wasn’t ready for a “black” president. He was almost surprised that I disagreed with him. I insisted that America IS READY. I knew it was. It just happend that I was correct as evidenced by some hindsight.
America has seen slavery that some felt would never end, vanish. America has seen all races and sexes have their voting rights recognized. We now see an America, still with a majority of white folk(probably not for long a majority)rushing to the polls to elect a man of color.
If all that can happen, if Egypt can live in peace with Israel, if the Berlin Wall can tumble, if there can be a President Obama, I have little choice but to believe anything and everything is possible. I do believe that Rand Paul’s philosphy of freedom without thought control, and business without government micromanagement, can work in today’s world. Not sure anyone is brave enough to try, but it would work and we would truly know freedom. Somehow an America free of racial persecution without government enforcement sounds more adult and truly free than needing “Big Brother”. Free Will properly directed is a beautiful thing. A whole society demanding justice and a level field of participation of their own choosing, far surpasses an enforced peace. Sounds scary, but growing up is scary. I think America is growing up and seeing the world for what it is.
Btw, when Rand stated that he would have marched with King, I believe him. Some people actually do stand on principle. Some people are willing to lose “friends”, risk physical injury, and having their homes vandalized as they stand firm in principle. If there were not such brave souls, I would hate to fathom the world in which we would be living in today. It is these people I hold on to. As I witness the ugliness of humanity,it gives me hope and inner strength as I witness each noble act or principled stand.
Freedom is the solution.
So far, Rand sounds pretty good to me.
LOL.
Something that could only have been written by someone not subject to the day to day realities of pervasive prejudice and discrimination on the basis of how God made you.
Thanks.
Why MB, that thought never occurred to me 😉
What if I believe that I should be able to stop at green lights and go at red lights? What business does the government have telling me that’s wrong? Red is no more inherently good or bad than green, who is the government to make that distinction? According to Rand Paul, each of us, especially the vaunted “private businesses,” should have the liberty to decide for ourselves.
If you acknowledge that there is a safety issue and important common interest in shackling people into a narrow red-means-stop, green-means-go infringement of their personal liberties, it’s because that’s what our government is supposed to be — a reflection of our common interest and consensus, determined through a more or less democratic process, and imposed on everyone, including the unwilling minority, for our mutual good.
That’s true of traffic laws, of anti-discrimination laws, and yes, of anti-smoking laws.
Actually, this was the exact point that I was trying to get to: where is the line drawn? Is the line when there is a safety issue, such as the OSHA regulations or the Clean Air Act?
In other words, how can we describe that line? Can we say that the line exists where it is to the advantage of the common good?
I believe that line is drawn at “provide for… the General Welfare of the United States” — not INDIVIDUAL welfare, mind you, but STATE welfare.
Another take on the issue from the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal here.
Vivian, If you want to run a private service that can allow discrimination then you should ask your patrons to pay a fee and be part of a private club. The Princess Anne country club here in Va. Beach for years refused membership to Jews and African Americans. I smoke cigarettes but would not dream of lighting up in a restaurant or any enclosed space where others are breathing. I can wait out of consideration of others. Afterall, I share this part of the planet with others who might not be so enthralled with the idea of having a smoke after a good meal. Just being considerate of my fellow man. Mr. Paul is just a parser. He wants to have it both ways. Just like the Confederacy. I have been a partner in a business that had nine locations. We were located in malls and strip malls. We cut peoples hair. I required my staff to be able to cut all peoples hair. No excuses. It was interesting that once white haircutters learned to cut afro hair or asian hair there was a change of mind about the prejudices that informed their life. My thought is that we are all human, we have our prejudices ingrained from our parents but given the chance we can overcome and see that we are all the same. As a business owner I could have chosen to service a pasty white clientele or I could have embraced the course that I chose, to be open to the public.Mr Rand equivocates too much for me. Libertarian views being confronted with the racism that has reared it’s ugly head with the election of Barak Obama.
Oh, my. Well at times I have to “Lol” and roll my eyes at the individual hating big government types.
And really, David Weintraub, I was raised by a mother that did march with my grandparents and did lose friends because they insisted that people of color were human beings, INDIVIDUALS that inherently deserve individual & natural rights simply because they existed. They were active in the Norfolk Unitarian church. You may recall that the Untiarian Church in Norfolk played a positive role in during Massive Resistance.So despite my being white in appearance, “walking in another man’s moccasins” was engraved in my head at a very young age. So, yes, you can joke my sincere dramatic writing as is your right, but it is crazy libertarians like me, and the family I am proud of, that would oppose discrimination openly even if not popular. It is people like that, that would risk imprisonment and smuggle victims of hatred to safety.
For Spotter and Vivian, freedom and liberty do not equal anarchy. Driving is a priviledge and wreckless endangerment is never accepted, no matter how “pink” you think the stop light is.
Just because we Libertarians embrace individuality and one’s right to religion, sexuality, opinion, and just general preferences, does NOT mean we condone causing injury to another or damaging ANOTHER person’s individual rights.
The courts handle violations of those rights and also provide a means to force those that damage others to pay both with compensatory and punitive penalties.
Freedom does not mean a business may endanger its labor. Libertarians are not anarchists and see OSHA as an appropriate entity. We believe the function of government is to protect the individual from force and fraud. We also believe in appropriate penalties for wrecklessyly endangering others or damaging them or their property. This can indeed extend to clean air or water pollution. Being a Libertarian does not mean you are not a conservationist or that you think corporations should be allowed to damage others by dumping toxins.
As to smoking, I was against the ban. I believe in freedom of association. I believe it is YOUR body. Now being required to post a sign at the door indicating that you will face second hand smoke and list possible dangers if you choose to enter the establishment, would be reasonable. At that point, you know the risks and choose for yourself how to conduct your day. If you care about your lungs and don’t want to reward that establishment with your patronage, that should also be your right. I say you are an adult and free to choose you own course and engage in the “pursuit of happiness” you choose so long as you don’t infringe on another’s rights.
Business owners should be free to risk their capital on niche marketing. If there are not enough smokers, they might not be profitable. So be it.
Warren, you hold onto that belief when the president is of the opposite party of yours and decides your individual liberties are just silly. Talk about “state welfare” then. Love the state more than yourself THEN at that point. For example,if a person is gay, I’d like to see them remain consistant and eschew individuality when guys like McDonnell make your private physical expression of love a felony. You hold on to that illogical view of liberty when you are denied a restraining order because you are not traditionally married to your life partner. I don’t believe you lose your INDIVIDUAL rights just because the “state” doesn’t like your kind of people.
It is so freakin’ hillarious how some Republicans love the state, morality enforcement, and warrentless wiretaps(Nixon or FISA anyone?) and then scream about civil rights when Obama’s versions favor his interest groups and pose difficulties for theirs.
Equally hypocritical are the Democrats that think the Clintons obtaining FBI files on Republican congresspersons is ok, but it is bad if Republicans spy on Americans. Hypocrite Democrats that scream at moraity enforcement by Republicans, but later embrace political correctness morality plays. Hypocrites on both sides that think forcing religion or secularization on children is ok but object to the other. A little consistent application PLEASE! You don’t get “Your turn” to violate and oppress the other side.
All this fear of true freedom is very telling and quite sad.
Clearly, many choose to remain close minded and simply believe and regurgitate talking points not supported by facts. For you, it isn’t about freedom or what is just. It is about YOUR TEAM being in control of the government. Sad that you treat government/political races like a football season.
You seem to misunderstand me. The US govt has no business meddling in the affairs of INDIVIDUALS, even for their individual welfare. That is the job of the STATE governments. The US govt should concern itself with the welfare of the STATES generally, not of individuals.
Perhaps I did Warren, but I’m still not sure I agree. While I am an advocate for states rights, clearly the federal government and the three branches of the government play a role.
The Supreme Court weighs heavily on individual rights for the good & bad. Kelo vs. New London being an example of bad. In that case they left it to the states to decide. Thankfully, Virginia chose the correct course.
As much as I like the idea of 50 different labratories, I can not agree that the individual states have the right to diminish individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In this case, the right to property.
So, I guess being already so taken aback by some other comments, I did not really get your drift. My mistake.
We agree that the States should not “have the right to diminish individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”
However, that has nothing to do with the US govt, which has taken upon itself, unconstitutionally, to attend to the personal welfare of individuals. As the US govt goes further down that road, it leads to more control over what we eat, drink, smoke, etc., and over how much we exercise, how often we go to the doctor, and so on.
We see this already in the school systems. The US govt takes money from us, then uses that for a small portion of our school funding, and says that they will withhold OUR money from OUR schools if we do not run our schools THEIR way! How ’bout ya just not take our money in the first place, and let US run our schools. When the schools in DC are better than those in VA, I’ll rethink letting the US govt meddle in our schools.