1

Firstist!!!

 

2 Yeah Me, Yeah Me,,, !!!

3

Mark me down as someone who supports the idea of businesses catering to whomever they want.

You want to put a sign in your window saying, "No (fill in the blank) allowed"? Go ahead. You'll probably go out of business once the word gets out that you're a bigoted asshole, but it's your own decision to make.

4 See? See there, you racist establishment pigs? Jim DeMint (tomorrow's special guest diarist! Don't miss it!) is sockpuppeting good old Rand, so there's nothing to see here. I still support Rand Paul 10000000000000000.000000000%.

Now send all of your money to today's Rand Paul moneybomb or you're banned. G'bye.

5 As an addition... Here's a The Corner set of links on Paul's (and others') response.

6

I support the idea of true Erick Erickson conservatives wearing special uniforms.

Wait'll you see the armbands. You'll love them!

7 So DT, can I put up a sign in my bank that says:

"Only mortgage applicants with credit score of XXXX accepted, no matter what race you are..." ?

8

 

Rand's biggest mistake was tripping over himself to correct himself, thus making it a big fuckup.

9 I don't think libertarianism is that toxic. And I just cannot believe he would think Jim Crow laws are tolerated by libertarianism. Discrimination from private establishments, yes, but not much else. That's more a defense of property rights than the craziness you were insisting.

10 But you're reading in the ability to choose people's thoughts for them. The idea that the state could (and should) right all private wrongs is what we've been fighting against this whole time. No, they shouldn't provide health care, force affirmative action, or regulate a person's unpopular and often wrong speech or who they associate with, nor even can they. Dr. King's brilliance as shown in his letter from Birmingham jail was showing the majority the rightness of his position by applying the timeless truths to the constitution to all and letting the rightness of his position speak for itself. Natural law baby.

11 3

Mark me down as someone who supports the idea of businesses catering to whomever they want.

----

Mark me down as someone who would fully support - and encourage - the "whomever" firemen, policemen, garbage men, etc in whose district said business is located to let the business burn, get robbed, be covered in filth, etc. 

Only guys like Ted Nugent, who is so rich that he can live basically off the grid, have the sorts of property rights libertarians espouse.  The rest of us are way too interdependent to live that way. 

12 Lets see, so the dems say that health care is a civil right, gay marriage is a civil right, breaking U.S. immigration law is a civil right, transexual bathrooms is a civil right, public foot washing basins for muzzies is a civil right.

Lets just declare everything a civil right, shall we?

13 @9 Liberitarianism isn't all that toxic. Its just reaaaaaaly hard to explain and understand. Not so much property as 1st amendment rights at stake.

14 OT:  National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair is resigning, Fox News has confirmed.

Blair will resign as soon as Friday, according to ABC News, which first reported the story.

15 "Mark me down as someone who would fully support - and encourage - the "whomever" firemen, policemen, garbage men, etc in whose district said business is located to let the business burn, get robbed, be covered in filth, etc"

That would be a function of the state, which cannot discriminate. Some of us still believe in property rights, as rights, not degrees of liberty.

16

Y-not at May 20, 2010 05:41 PM (Kn9r7)

You stopped reading my comment after the first sentence, didn't you?

Reading is good.

17 Y-not, so people you disagree with should be assaulted and their property, um, liberated...

Kewl!  Please tell me where your business is located.  I'll be right over for my share of the, um, liberation redistribution...

18 @11 Those are government institutions. No problem there implementing the Civil Rights Act. If a business wants to go belly up, just discriminate, it works wonders.

19 I protest this firstist aggression, sir.  Protest most vigoriously.

20 >>>You want to put a sign in your window saying, "No (fill in the blank) allowed"? Go ahead. You'll probably go out of business once the word gets out that you're a bigoted asshole, but it's your own decision to make. This is a false argument -- that is true NOW. Yes, NOW, we have a previaling condition in which this stuff is generally deemed toxic and such exercise in freedom would result in one's bankruptcy -- so people don't do this often. But would this have happened in 1964? No, indeed, it would not; or, at least, even if one thinks the South was abondining Jim Crow organically and naturally (and without Yankee interference), it was still going strong and would have continued for decades. So you're saying that we don't need the CRA NOW, but you avoid the question of whether we needed it to accomplish this purpose THEN, which is the RELEVANT consideration. The fact that a bigoted business owner would go out of business NOW is thanks in no small part to ending the Jim Crow regime through government coercion/federal power. You're accepting the benefits of that prior exercise of power while pretending those benefits didn't accrue from that exercise.

21

Is this now the Rand Paul Blog exclusively?

 

22 It almost doesn't matter: If you support AZ 1070 no one cares what you think about the Civil Rights Act --you're a racist.

23 nowhere in the Constitution is there any power to stop the practice of peonage

No law can stop it. Humanity is majority-asshole at all times. The state can only shift the freely asshole-chosen peon pool so it's full of people the state (a subset of assholes) deems expendable. From there, it trends toward making that pool include everyone outside itself. Then terrible shit happens, and we try again, and fail again. Because...assholes. That's it.

24 Why are we wasting so much space on this non-issue today?  So Rand Paul made an ill-advised appearance on Rachel MadCow's show and stepped in a pile of shit.  Big fucking deal.  We are just playing into the Left's hands by continuing to talk about this.  There's probably 1% of the American people today who really think the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea.  And Rand Paul isn't one of them.  The more we talk a bout this and get defensive about it, the more the Democrats are going to smell blood and keep pounding us over the head with it.  Meanwhile, these cocksuckers are about to pass a "financial reform" bill that is going to be economically ruinous and are looking to put another $200 billion on America's credit card.  Is it any wonder they would rather be talking about Civil Rights???

25 Ron, I mean Rand Paul -- oh fuck it, they're basically the same person -- and the kind of libertarian dipsticks who defend them, always remind me of a political cartoon that ran in the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate during David Duke's 1990 Senate run.

In it, a woman confronts a Duke supporter, who is carrying a sign for his guy and is decked out in all manner of Duke campaign regalia. Appalled, the women lays out for the man his guy's appalling record of statements and positions against Jews, blacks, and everyone and everything else that a Grand Wizard is obligated to be against. She goes on for a while and fills up a pretty sizable speech balloon of damning facts against ol' Dave.

To which the Duke supporter simply replies, "yeah, but I really like what he says about affirmative action."

26 >>>Discrimination from private establishments, yes, but not much else. That's more a defense of property rights than the craziness you were insisting. Yeah, but dude, don't pretend the two weren't closely related and mutually supporting. Jim Crow LAWS were state enforced. On the other hand, there was a Jim Crow social code -- that permitted/encoraged businesses to discriminate. You're saying the one can be stopped but the other can't; I guess one can make a technical reason why this should be the case. But honestly, the second one is just as important. Just like peons weren't allowed to make their own bread in their own ovens but had to pay the Lord for the use of his... you are talking about a pernicious regime of second-class citizenry/peonage, enforced by BOTH law, and social code, and reinforced by a lot of winking, and you're ignoring the fact that these feed each other. For example, the real law isn't on the books but what the cops enforce and the judges convict for, you know? there is the paper law and the actual, tangible law in practice. If Jim Crow exists as a social matter, even if supposedly its "illegal" on the books, then the cops who execute that law are going to enforce the real law -- that says Jim Crow is okay -- and do stuff like keep blacks out of PUBLIC whites-only parks (public land, owned by the state, etc.) Supposedly, you'd say that could be stopped, as that would be illegal and all. I am saying as a practical matter no it can't be, the two are part and parcel of each other.

27
>>You're accepting the benefits of that prior exercise of power while pretending those benefits didn't accrue from that exercise.

I'll accept them, but now can we defend property rights as if they were actually rights?

28

Ace,

get ready to have the CRA shoved down AZ's throat.  It is a topical and important debate, since the CRA refers to race, creed, color, or national origin.

The 14th Amendment does not list such classifications.  Surely that's an important distinction, yes?

29 Anyone, libertarian or otherwise, that entertains the notion that anything that has been legislated (or mandated ad hoc) under the auspices of civil rights will be reversed or modified is delusional.

30 At least he's not fat.

31

If we have no peonage our bladders will explode and we will die. That is why no law can stop it. It just happens.

 

Don't be stupid.

32

Less Rand Paul.

More Yeoman Rand.

33 TWBTUS,

heh.
I thought that was going to end with the guy saying "I just like the basketball team, go blue devils!"

34

Less Rand Paul.

More Les Paul.

35 You do know that the CRA didn't actually end Jim Crow laws, right? On account of them having been repealed in the 1930s?

36 >>I am saying as a practical matter no it can't be, the two are part and parcel of each other.

I understand that. I get caught up in the theoretical purity. Like J.S. Mill said, some people aren't ready for freedom. As a practical matter, it was probably necessary. I tend to aspire for a better place and better laws... and I think we are ready for some today.

37 More Yeoman Rand.

Yeoman Rand was enough to make any man lose control.

38 It's not an either/or proposition. The ends were correct, but the means stepped on a more basic right, and a middle way was not pursued.

39 What I'm saying is that it wasn't a problem of *law*, it was a problem of *enforcement*.

40

Well AlGore's beloved dad voted against it. But then again, he was a wonderful Dem.

Rand Paul believes in freedom and the free market and doesn't care if you don't like it.

41 You know what?  Only until now did I realize that people since this interview were referring to the Civil Rights Act, not the Community Reinvestment Act. Oops. 

42 My local Pizza Hut will NOT deliver to certain areas, along with about every other on-site type service biz.

Is this discrimination?

43 41 You know what?  Only until now did I realize that people since this interview were referring to the Civil Rights Act, not the Community Reinvestment Act. Oops. 

Posted by: logprof at May 20, 2010 06:00 PM (Mmw0q)

Fucking Canadians...

44

Less Rand Paul.

More Mrs. Paul

45 Jim Crow laws were (also) used to go after poor whites who had something to gain by making personal or business partnerships with blacks.

Jim Crow laws were an artifact of the Chattering Classes not of the southern population as a whole.

46

It's not like Harlem's shitty schools got any better after the Civil Rights Act.

In fact, they got worse..

47

Posted by: Stan at May 20, 2010 05:58 PM (5Ji8M)

I guess that makes my implicit defense of Rand Paul kind of weak. Yeah, Ace, you changed my mind.

48 >>>>hy are we wasting so much space on this non-issue today? So Rand Paul made an ill-advised appearance on Rachel MadCow's show and stepped in a pile of shit. Big fucking deal. We are just playing into the Left's hands by continuing to talk about this. I would say that Rand Paul's defenders -- and those who support his first utterances about this -- would say "We're talking about it because it's Important to talk about it, to get a proper sense of history and the Constitution." I would say the same thing myself: I think they're wrong, and they're wrong in an IMPORTANT way. And a lot of times I self-censor or at least skip topics because I think it's unnecessary to get into big tussels with my fellow conservatives over relatively small (or at least not pressing) issues. HOWEVER, if the Paulites and Revanchists are determined to have this fight (NOW of all times), and can't just friggin' get past this in the interest of comity -- then neither can I. I like to be politic, and I love my readers, and I like pleasing them, and I HATE fighting with them (Seriously). I'm squishy like that -- my personality type is sort of accomodationist with allies. (I fight with opponents, but I tend to accommodate allies, can't-we-all-just-get-along, etc.) What annoys me, often, is that I see a lot of people on my side not playing by these same accomodationist agree-to-disagree rules, and sort of insisting that they want to prevail on these points that I really think should be set aside for now in the interests of what I agree with them on. And then I have to become the pussy and sort of roll over and try to find grounds to agree and etc. But sometimes I don't want to. So I guess what I'm trying to say is this: There is a lot of self-censorship/let's-find-a-way-to-agree on the part of us... what's the right word? Ah yes: SELL OUT STEALTH-LIBERAL RINO PUSSY COCKSUCKERS. But you know, if we're going to play this game where we're all free to try to force our positions on the the other segments of our coalition and try to prevail on each one -- well, then I'm playing that game too. I think Southern Jim Crow was an unmitigated evil and I think those who continue soft-pedaling it and making excuses are indulging in apologism for evil. And I'm tired of walking on eggshells about this. So if some people lack the wisdom to put aside points of disagreement in the interests of unity -- well then I'm going to similarly engage in the same ill-wisdom and start trying to vindicate MY side. People adopt different and changing positions about disagreement. A lot of the time, people adopt accomodationist attitudes, because accomodation is important. But if that accomodation gets pushed to the limits by people pursuing not an accomodation strategy but a victory strategy (that is, not saying "let's table this" but trying to win the point) sometimes people decide they'd have to be pussy chumps to continue the accomodation strategy, and that it's time to pursue the victory strategy ourselves. This is a fractuous and delicate coalition. I wish people would understand that. You can't win on everything. And you shouldn't try to win on everything. So that's why I'm having this argument now, personally.

49 I am shocked that Rachel Maddow is this successful a troll.

50 Yawn....why all the sniveling.....is this 1964 again?

Mexico's President was just in OUR House telling us to go to hell!

And the anti-American Kenyan President of the US was agitating him on!

Get off the liberal's playground!

51 You're accepting the benefits of that prior exercise of power while pretending those benefits didn't accrue from that exercise.- Ace
Your entire argument is that ends justify means. It does nothing to address the constitutionality of the means.

52

Oh my.... Scott Brown voted with the dems to move forward on a bill which will KILL local banks, while giving too big to fail status to large banks...

And this is the third Rand Paul thread...

53 Good job ace. That subject needed to be changed quickly. I think it would have taken the discussion down a very ugly and non productive path. Kinda the way some of you feel about Obama's Citizenship status.

54
45 Jim Crow laws were (also) used to go after poor whites who had something to gain by making personal or business partnerships with blacks.

Jim Crow laws were an artifact of the Chattering Classes not of the southern population as a whole.


Adrienne makes a great point:

Poor Southern whites were treated almost as badly as Southern blacks, esp. post-war.  Jim Crow was simply the easiest way for teh landed gentry to let the law take care of one of the problems while ruthlessly supressing the other themselves.

55 #21 LGF has 7 Rand Paul threads.  LOL. So the answer is no.

56 43 41 You know what?  Only until now did I realize that people since this interview were referring to the Civil Rights Act, not the Community Reinvestment Act. Oops. 

Posted by: logprof at May 20, 2010 06:00 PM (Mmw0q)

Fucking Canadians...

Posted by: TexasJew at May 20, 2010 06:01 PM (ikmC5)

--Yeah, really!  For the last couple of years the other CRA has been more relevant, but leave it to a member of the Paul clan to bring up the older CRA again.

57

Mark me down as someone who would fully support - and encourage - the "whomever" firemen, policemen, garbage men, etc in whose district said business is located to let the business burn, get robbed, be covered in filth, etc. 

Only guys like Ted Nugent, who is so rich that he can live basically off the grid, have the sorts of property rights libertarians espouse.  The rest of us are way too interdependent to live that way. 

Posted by: Y-not at May 20, 2010 05:41 PM (Kn9r7)

You don't like that "Equal protection under the law..." part?

58

This is just the beginning, Ron Paul and now Rand, provide the MSM/Dems the perfect opportunity to brand Conservatives, Libertarians, Beck, and the GOP as Racist crackpots.

This isn't the only thing like this on Paul that will come out, it will be common knowledge to joe blow voter by Nov. that Rand Paul and the Tea Party thinks its "ok to discriminate against blacks"

 

59 Breaking ... Director of National Intelligence to resign.  Hope Nappy follows shortly.

60 49 I am shocked that Rachel Maddow is this successful a troll.

Posted by: Phelps at May 20, 2010 06:05 PM (o/6if)

 

Have you not seen pictures of her?  Not even I can stop her from regenerating hit points for long.

61

Mark Levin is staring this show with this.

62

ace at May 20, 2010 05:48 PM (66DVY)

Good points, of course. Probably the best point that can be made on the subject.

Do we still need this law now? I don't know. Maybe in some areas you'd see signs go up. You might even see signs go up saying "No whites allowed". How you'd enforce such nonsense I don't know. What if someone like Barry walked into the store? He is white or is he black? Is one drop of white blood enough to ban him from a no whites allowed store? Is one drop of black blood enough to ban him from a no blacks allowed store? The mind boggles!

I do know the government likes to use this law to shoehorn in a lot of market controlling and business killing crap that has nothing to do with race.

Eh, I don't know. Ever since SCOTUS shredded liberty of contract, the government's been able to force businesses to do just about anything.

63 Leave the poor straw men alone!

64

Mark me down as someone who would fully support - and encourage - the "whomever" firemen, policemen, garbage men, etc in whose district said business is located to let the business burn, get robbed, be covered in filth, etc. 

Only guys like Ted Nugent, who is so rich that he can live basically off the grid, have the sorts of property rights libertarians espouse.  The rest of us are way too interdependent to live that way. 

Posted by: Y-not at May 20, 2010 05:41 PM (Kn9r7)

My firemen are volunteers and are more than happy to serve the entire "community" -- even for a small brush fire. My police are municipal employees and, therefore, have to serve every member of the municipality. My garbageman is a private enterprise who can tell me to fuck off as soon as I pay my last bill.

WTF are you thinking?

65 ...I think Southern Jim Crow was an unmitigated evil and I think those who continue soft-pedaling it and making excuses are indulging in apologism for evil....

Who the mofo is doing this?

Jim Crow laws are ALREADY in violation of the Constitution because they deny the Freedom of Association!

Why the hell do we need more laws when we don't have the political will necessary to enforce the ones already on the books?

And in the act of creating new laws, go beyond intelligence to the point of making banks give home loans to people who don't have a snowballs chance in hell of paying them back for the purpose of meeting racial quotas!!!!!!!!

Or the justification of taking only black school children on a field trip to hear a black scientist speak and not their white classmates!!!!!

66

 

Sheriff Joe Biden announced he was driving the bus under which Admiral Dennis Blair was thrown for the good of the democrat party.  Admiral Blair has been hospitalized with internal injuries, a very sore anus, and is unavailable for comment.

 

 

67 @56 Not too far off. The CRA was created by the CRA....

68 No French Allowed!!!!

69 55 #21 LGF has 7 Rand Paul threads.  LOL. So the answer is no.

And quite frankly, I don't blame Chucky. When your political enemies are stupid enough to crown a Senate standard-bearer who nukes his own candidacy on his first day as the nominee, why wouldn't you take advantage of it?

70 logprof - the new CRA is an outgrowth of the old CRA as the justification was since everyone is equal before the law, why can't everyone get the McMansion of their Dreams?

71 I think Ace does have a good point that what would happen in 64 is different today. True, but we still have the CRA and its progeny and the government is all to eager to use it. There's no off switch. Did the CRA even end discrimination? Probably not. Its not the law that changed people's minds, it was the fundemental unfairness of the prior law. All affirmative action and quotas do is enshrine race warfare over what the government should dole out

72 Rand Paul needs to let this shit go. There is no upside to this.

73

Can I start a business and put a sign up that says, "No Communists allowed"?

74

I think Southern Jim Crow was an unmitigated evil and I think those who continue soft-pedaling it and making excuses are indulging in apologism for evil.

Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 06:05 PM (66DVY)

I lived in the South when it was segregated and the Dems were everywhere. They loved segregation - it was their political heritage since 1870, if not earlier.

You could barely get a state job if you were a Republican.

It's 2010 now. Get the fuck over it. George Wallace has been dead for decades. I don't remember people in the 60's driving Model T Fords. What's with all this weird pathetic nostalgia?

Rand Paul is talking about a free nation with free markets and freedom of speech. Freedom for all Americans, not just some select favored groups.

Let's talk about that.

 

 

75 @73 Politically, you're absolutely right. The problem is the CRA is like the healthcare argument. What can the government force people to do to right some wrong?

76

Mark Levin is staring this show with this.

Posted by: bebe's boobs destroy at May 20, 2010 06:10 PM (cniXs)

--He is doing very well on puttin' some knowledge.

He also gave the "WTF are you doing going on MSLSD right off the bat?" advice.

77

I think this also goes back to another argument I've had with both parties for awhile now (and with the Supremes...).

Its true that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but ONLY because we can AMEND it.  The Amendment process gives us the ability to have a debate about the changes made to it... while these "reinterpretations" of meaning, and scope... do NOT allow us to have that debate.

Its like McCain/Feingold... the Surpremes upheld what any clear reading of the Constitution would prohibit, ie, Congress making a law infringing on Freedom of Speech.  The 'reinterpreted' the Constitution so they could do so...

This breaks the Covenent between the People, States, and Feds, which the Constitution created... without the PEOPLE having any say in it..

CRA did the same thing, IMO, when they enforced behaviour on private property and business... they reinterpreted the Constitutiton without Amendment.

78

a guy who still has his KKK sheet hanging in his closet.

Make way for liberty!

79 What is clear is that unadulterated libertarianism is a slow poison to conservatives.  The MSM will find it a conveinient and useful club against all conservatives.  Never mind the Dem party can house pedophiles, murderers, serial rapists, cultural Marxists, and generally people that view a country not as a physical place to house ideals and a world philosophy, but as a great big piggy bank for their own use, or actually nothing much more than toilet paper.

 Look at today, for example, Obama inviting the head of a failed narco-state to lecture the U.S. and whine about one of our States that is only trying to protect itself, thus dividing us either further, I swear this fucker wants a Civil War.  If anything let Rand do his job and distance ourselves from him, yeah he won on the Republican ticket, but we should repudiate any of his crazy ideas loudly and often. 

And try to get another person to fill that slot in two years, this guy will be nothing but trouble.  He would fit in with the Dems however, because if he sucked Obama off, the they would accept any other thing he had in his noggin, including segregation or stoning gays.  The Dems only have one principle, remain in power at all costs, even at the destruction of this nation.

Our differences better come to the level of who is leading the charge, and who stays by the horses etc...  This is a war for the survival of this nation, I hope we can win it on an ideological battlefield, if not, and we are still men, it will become bloody.

80 >>>Do we still need this law now? I don't know. Maybe in some areas you'd see signs go up. You might even see signs go up saying "No whites allowed". We might not need it now, exactly, as a general matter, and could maybe afford to give racism a chance -- I don't mean that snidely, I mean I take your point that absent the heavy hand of government coercion, it would probably not catch on at all and so on. The problem is that it would probably still be kind of needed in some areas, like, who knows, a Missisippi swamp county of extremely poor blacks and where the one pharmacist -- a white guy -- DOES decide to stop serving coloreds. And what then? I know the easy libertarian answer is "those blacks should just move" or something, but, yeah, they're really poor. They're not like living in a depressed swamp backwater out of choice. If enough of a numerically-dominant majority which is also wealthier decides, among themselves, to reduce the freedom of a minority... well the problem there is that a group -- not the state, a private group, I admit -- is acting to reduce someone else's range of freedom, too, and where the rubber meets the road, if you believe in freedom, you can't be completely indifferent to the reduction of freedom being inflictedo n that minority. Even if it does arise through private action rather than state action.

81

I'll repeat what I said in another thread, more relevant here;

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

This actually bothers me more than if he would make a case for the repeal of it. Intentions, or nice sounding names, are irrelevant. It is the effect, best carefully estimated or seen in hindsight, intended and unintended consequences that laws should be judged on, not whether they make people feel good about the legislators who passed them.

If a law has great intent but sucks in practice we shouldn't be forced to say, oh well, they meant well, so suck it up. Even if it was passed 100 years ago.  "Repeal and Replace" could probably apply to half the laws on the books, since politicians stick to stage one thinking as Sowell points out.

I'm not saying that's the case with this law. I'm speaking generally about defenses of laws based on intent. I don't think that even our public is too stupid to grasp the distinction.

82

So if some people lack the wisdom to put aside points of disagreement in the interests of unity -- well then I'm going to similarly engage in the same ill-wisdom and start trying to vindicate MY side.

People adopt different and changing positions about disagreement. A lot of the time, people adopt accomodationist attitudes, because accomodation is important.

But if that accomodation gets pushed to the limits by people pursuing not an accomodation strategy but a victory strategy (that is, not saying "let's table this" but trying to win the point) sometimes people decide they'd have to be pussy chumps to continue the accomodation strategy, and that it's time to pursue the victory strategy ourselves

and sometimes the discussion  for some of us , leads to  lightbulb moments, I had not really understood the argument until you laid it bare , in This post and the last. Well done.

83 Ky Lib/Dem blogs looking up Stormfront stuff on Rand now....this is just the beginning

84 What can the government force people to do to right some wrong?

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 06:18 PM (PUC8V)

Yeah I hear you, but if he wants to argue about the health care bill I am all for it. The right to ban blacks from lunch counters, not so much.

85

 

Can I start a business and put a sign up that says, "No Communists allowed"?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at May 20, 2010 06:17 PM (P33XN)

That would be a tough sell as was the following at Geno's Subs in Philly. 

"This Is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING Please 'SPEAK ENGLISH'".

86 Jim Crow was evil, and I'm almost certain that if it were still around when I was alive, it probably would change my view on the topic. Problem is it was dead for 30 years (or thereabouts) before I was born. After you kill the infection, usually one quits taking penecillin. We have killed the disease, but the cure still remains and has itself become dangerous.

87 I like the Jim Crow laws.  Hey whitey, take off those USA t-shirts or you're out of this school.

88 (((:~(>

89 This is all about making him a racist by the left and the media. It will not work. He will win in November. Nice try media. NEXT.

90 >>>It's 2010 now. Get the fuck over it. George Wallace has been dead for decades. I don't remember people in the 60's driving Model T Fords. What's with all this weird pathetic nostalgia? Huh? If you mean "get over all of this," I sort of agree. But I thought that's what I had been doing. I would encourage Rand Paul and other people who are still sort of annoyed at the CRA to get over it, too. Let's all collectively get over it, and accept it's settled law (as he now says), and there's really not any point arguing about it. But... look, if we're to "get over it' we ALL have to "get over it." I can't get over it if Rand Paul can't, and is going to be introducing it as a live debate in 2010.

91 @86 What about bringing parity in health care to minorities? Same thing? Affimitave action? Quotas? Its not about lunch counters, nor ever was. What can I force you to do today?

92

Barefoot and Progressive has some screen caps of Stormfront post on Rand now.

This stuff wasn't that useful for us vs. Ron Paul but some how I think it will be fore the much more powerful MSM and Dem machine against Rand.

93 Rand is a total screw up for going on NPR in the first place. I have no respect for people who can't avoid stepping in dog waste.

94

Curses!  Foiled again!  We'll get you yet, Ron Rand Paul!  We'll get you yet!

95 While the conservative blogosphere analyzes the finer points of Rand Paul's anal polyps today, we'll ignore the Financial Reform turd that's being passed. Excellent.

96 GD sock

97

squad*

98 I can't get over it if Rand Paul can't, and is going to be introducing it as a live debate in 2010.

To be fair, he didn't introduce it, he was asked a question, and tried to make a nuanced libertarian argument which failed.  He has since corrected it with what I would call a "get over it" statement.

99 Could it be that this is why the Democrats Jim Crow laws lasted so long?

100 What about bringing parity in health care to minorities? Same thing? Affimitave action? Quotas?

Its not about lunch counters, nor ever was. What can I force you to do today?

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 06:23 PM (PUC8V)

You obviously didn't watch the Madcow interview. It was painful minute after minute of banning blacks from lunch counters with a few references of Bob Jones U banning interracial dating thrown in.

We have parity in health care for minorities, they can buy it at the same frigging place I do.

101

"peonage"?

are serious?

a business owner be able to choose who they serve and who they don't is "peonage"?

I can't even believe this conversation is happening.

102 Man, we're going to deserve it when the Dems get their unstoppable majority back this fall.  There's serious shit going on and we get 5 posts a day about Rand Paul's blood type.

103 Its not about lunch counters, nor ever was. What can I force you to do today?

No, at one point it was very much about lunch counters.  You can certainly make the argument we traded away too much liberty to get rid of segregated lunch counters, but to argue that point seriously is political suicide.

104

Posted by: ace at May 20, 2010 06:23 PM (66DVY)

When the CRA morphed into Affirmative Action, then it stepped over the line.

Segregation was unconstitutional as hell, but then again, so is Affirmative Action as it is practiced. Rand Paul wants a debate on unfair practices of the Affirmative Action policies of the Federal and local governments. So do most Americans.

No one wants to trash the CRA, but the discriminatory policies of Affirmative Action and the unconstitutional "Hate Speech" mob needs to be addressed democratically.

I don't agree with many of the foreign policies of Rand Paul, but if W had been more like Rand Paul domestically  and less like a fucking spend-it-all RINO, his last term would have not been like the smoking crater under the Tsar Bomba.

105 >>>To be fair, he didn't introduce it, he was asked a question, and tried to make a nuanced libertarian argument which failed. He has since corrected it with what I would call a "get over it" statement. True, but... Look, just say the 13th-15th amendments specifically empowered the government to end slavery and its vestiges BUT such reductions in liberty are extremely dangerous because the government always uses coercion as a tool if permitted, so you will jealousy guard against further encroachments. I mean -- whatever. Yes, he was asked this, but he decided how to answer. And it's not just a question of him deciding how to answer; plainly, we know that he really doesn't like the CRA. That doesn't mean I think he's a racist -- I kind of doubt he is. But it does inject it as a storyline, and furthermore, it introduces the idea that he's got some exotic ideas cooking in his brain. It suggests -- this is true of a lot of libertarians, and especially libertarians with the last name "Paul" and the first initial "R" -- that we're going to be having some kooky pot-addled college-bullshit-session noodling about arcane and ancient shit and exotic, quixotic taking some principles to their extremes while ignoring contrary competing principles altogether.

106

What annoys me, often, is that I see a lot of people on my side not playing by these same accomodationist agree-to-disagree rules, and sort of insisting that they want to prevail on these points that I really think should be set aside for now in the interests of what I agree with them on.

I agree, Jim. I'm a mousey eye doctor, for the love of Spock! This political microscoping is throwing me for a loop.

But nothing personal, Jim: I'm still voting for John Stossel to replace you as commander after your next peer-review meeting.

107

I can't believe that I'm commenting on this thread, but I've got to say this:

Ace, your line of argument amounts to granting the government, and the federal government specifically, the power and authority to change the social norms and behaviors of citizens engaging in private activity in accordance with the wishes of whoever happens to be in power at the time. So tell us, what limit is there to the federal government's power in your view? The honest answer would be: none.

You pointed out that those arguing against you are accepting the benefit of the CRA (the elimination or at least radical reduction of discrimation) without accepting that it wouldn't have happened without the CRA. I would say that there's a lot of truth in that, but that I think it would have taken less time than you think before cultural pressures would have gotten us there anyway. More important though, is that we can turn your argument around on you and say that you are accepting the benefit of the CRA without accepting the cost of having the federal govern assume power over private associations. As I said, you've got no argument against the federal government usurping any power for any purpose it deems desireable. Of course you won't acknowledge that, but that's your problem.

And I'm not even a libertarian!

108 You missed his point by about a mile and half there Ace.

109

Its not about lunch counters, nor ever was. What can I force you to do today?

Well, it WAS about lunch counters in the beginning, or at least using the lunch counters as a very public symbol of a wider system.

Certain individuals, however, soon discovered they could use the movement to fulfill other objectives, more sinister than desegregation.

110

there is a difference:

does a private business owner own their business or not?

government employees are correctly bound by law to serve everyone.

the question becomes then - does the government own everything, all goods, all services?

just what does a private citizen own?

and what does "ownership" mean?

why even bother with that pesky old rag called the Constitution?

111 >>>While the conservative blogosphere analyzes the finer points of Rand Paul's anal polyps today, we'll ignore the Financial Reform turd that's being passed. Excellent. But seriously -- that is partly the point made below by Drew. Why have this argument now? You seem (I think) to be blaming me and other bloggers for indulging in this, while (I think) excusing Rand Paul for tossing the grenade into the tent. But I should also say I don't understand the financial regulation package... I'll post that headline though.

112 ... The problem is that it would probably still be kind of needed in some areas, like, who knows, a Missisippi swamp county of extremely poor blacks and where the one pharmacist -- a white guy -- DOES decide to stop serving coloreds. ...

Ace - you're probably right.

The school administration that only took black children on a field trip was that old Confederate bastion of Ann Arbor, MI ...

Can't be too careful about the lingering influence of Jim Crow Laws in Michigan.

113 @102 No, I refuse to watch Maddow under any circumstances. I think one of the reasons it makes this argument hard is the optics. We aren't talking about lunch counters, we're arguing over whether the government has the auspice to interfere in the lives and property of individuals under the right circumstances. Health care can be framed as a disparate impact problem, something that rose out of the CRA. Say for example that minorities currently receive less health care than whites for whatever reason. Should the government ever be able to come in and ration so that all patients of different races benifit equally? Or how about your friends. By population, you should have at least 10% african american friends. Maybe the government should help you fix that problem? Not enough minorities in your neighborhood? Well, the government can.... oh yeah they already fixed this one with the Community Reinvestment Act. Sorry. Point is, the question is not the propriety of Jim Crow or any of that, it is can the government interfere with an individual's rights to property and more importantly first amendment rights to free speech and association to fix a wrong? If so, why can't they take your money and force you to have health care? Easy, if you are correct, they can.

114 The problem here is simple -- whereas Ace has: - thought about, - developed and - can articulate both a nuanced conservative position on the arc of U.S. civil rights history and legislation, the CRA 1964 and the VRA 1965, and moreover - can translate all that into a practical policy and effective political position for 2010 Rand Paul is still stuck somewhere in that first stage. In the result, most if not all of the remaining time between now and November 2 is going to be taken up with Paul's struggles to get past that first stage, in no small part because the main stream of American libertarian thought has been stuck like an alcoholic in denial enrolled in 12 Steps -- doomed to repeat stages 1 and 2 over and over again, never even getting to stage 3. In fairness to Rand Paul, this difficulty appears to be at least in part inherited. But it's a little late in the day to expect all conservatives and the entire Republican party support apparatus to call a time out for the next several months while one of its nominees goes through an intervention.

115

Less Rand Paul.

More Tony Randall.

Vo Vo De Oh Doe

116 After you kill the infection, usually one quits taking penecillin. We have killed the disease, but the cure still remains and has itself become dangerous.

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 06:22 PM (PUC8V)

I think all laws congress passes ought to automatically come up for renewal every so often. Of couse, this might take up so much time so as to prevent them from doing much of anything new. Feature, not a bug.

117 95 Rand is a total screw up for going on NPR in the first place.
I have no respect for people who can't avoid stepping in dog waste.

Posted by: rawmuse at May 20, 2010 06:25 PM (+JrzC)

I support Rand Paul, but yeah - you're right there. Lie down with dogs..

Libertarians have a bad habit of forgetting about that whole commie-scumbag statist thing out there.. they'd rather criticize someone for putting up a surveillance camera out in the street than admit that the entire Democrat party is a fetid collection of socialist traitorous fucks.

118 Do they even still have lunch counters?

119

Certain individuals, however, soon discovered they could use the movement to fulfill other objectives, more sinister than desegregation.

Posted by: Robert Byrd at May 20, 2010 06:36 PM (P33XN)

Yeah, well that's a problem when society acts like assholes and tells people I don't want your money and I won't feed you in my restaurant because you're black. The government get's involved and when that happens there is alway unintended consequences.

If there wasn't a need for the CRA we probably wouldn't have one, but there was. By the way, I have never been adversly affected by the CRA that I know of so I am not sure what the problem is other than we forced the government to act and when they did they probably overreached like they always do.

120 Oh yes!  and when all the new anti-obesity laws get passed, they will have dinner counters, snack counters, brunch counters ...

121 >>>Ace, your line of argument amounts to granting the government, and the federal government specifically, the power and authority to change the social norms and behaviors of citizens engaging in private activity in accordance with the wishes of whoever happens to be in power at the time. No, my argument is quite limited: The government has the powers it was granted through the 13th through 15th Amendments, lawfully promulgated and legally empowering, and those Amemdents SPECIFICALLY sought to end not just the formal institution of slavery but the "badges and incidents of servitude," and the South through this period said "Fuck you, we're back-dooring peonage right the fuck back in, ha-ha," and this was permitted for 100 years becuse no one wanted another war. But this had been illegal, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, for 100 years prior -- just no one bothered enforcing the Constitution. And yes, the constitution CAN limit freedom, as millions of people intended to do when they prohibited the sale and transport of alcohol. THE PEOPLE CAN IN FACT VOTE TO LIMIT THEIR FREEDOM BY AMENDMENT, OR EXPAND IT BY AMENDMENT: IN EITHER CASE, SO LONG AS CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED, IT ESTABLISHES A NEW COMPACT AND NEW, BINDING CONSTITUTION. I believe in the Constitution... You probably do too, but you seem to be "supplementing" the Constitution, like liberals do, with extra-constitutional authority which you believes trumps the constitution itself -- natural law or whatever. I don't do that (or do less of that). If amendments are passed barring slavery (and intending to bar what the South came up as an evasion --a legally enforced sub-citizen caste/new racial peonage), that means you just lost your previous right to do that, exactly the same as you previously had the right to sell liquor but lost it when the 18th Amendment was passed. To argue otherwise is to argue the constitution doesn't mean anything, becuase you have a set of natural law principles which trumps anything written in the constutiton.

122

I think all laws congress passes ought to automatically come up for renewal every so often.


THat was one of teh parts of the constitution (or BOR, I can't remember) that was proposed and rejected. 

A 25 year mandatory sunset clause (unless renewed by an individual vote on every statute, would solve A LOT of problems in this country,

123

Robert Byrd sockpuppet EPIC FAIL!

 

124 Jim Crow was state sponsored discrimination.  It was economic liberty and private property rights that started to chip away at Jim Crow.  Here is Barry Goldwater explaining why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  

http://tiny.cc/26lj2

125 Oh and by the by, the Dow dropped near 400 points today.

Just in case anybody gave a rat's fuck while you were all busy discussing the size of Rand Paul's anus.

126 Why then, did the first blacks elected to Congress come from the southern states and not the northern ones?

Since Mississippi is still stuck in the dark ages and all ...

127

Some people need to take a fucking anti -"Civil Rights Era Nostalgia" pill.

Amy Althouse, in particular. We'll hide it in her alfalfa bale.

128 Congress approves funds for Israel's Iron Dome Anti-Missile system today. 4 people voted against it: Conyers Kucinich Paul Stark

129

moral hazard:

why should I produce a good or service if I have no control over how that good or service is distributed?

boulderdash you say?

chip a little away here, chip a little away there and over time all you have left is a pile of garbage.

130
ace

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT EXTEND TO "BADGES OF SLAVERY" SUCH AS PUBLIC DISCRIMINATION IN ACCOMMODATIONS!!!

After giving to these questions all the consideration which their importance demands, we are forced to the conclusion that such an act of refusal has nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude, and that if it is violative of any right of the party, his redress is to be sought under the laws of the state; or, if those laws are adverse to his rights and do not protect him, his remedy will be found in the corrective legislation which congress has adopted, or may adopt, for counteracting the effect of state laws, or state action, prohibited by the fourteenth amendment.

CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), 109 U.S. 3, 24

131 Ian.....the rightwing has battered wives syndrome...they just can't stop groveling for the approval and understanding of the left.

They get smashed in the head, kicked in the groin, run over with the car, and beheaded.....and they still think they can make commies change their minds.

132 Point is, the question is not the propriety of Jim Crow or any of that, it is can the government interfere with an individual's rights to property and more importantly first amendment rights to free speech and association to fix a wrong? If so, why can't they take your money and force you to have health care? Easy, if you are correct, they can.

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 06:37 PM (PUC8V)

I don't agree, even with medicare the government can't come and take your money unless you are working for wages or salary. The government in my opinion can't force you into commerce, which is what the new health care bill does. Once you have decided to participate in commerce though they can regulate you and as we have seen the commerce clause is pretty open ended.

On the other hand the government could tax us all like they do with medicare and give us health care as a benefit and there is nothing we could do about it. They didn't do it that way because they knew they couldn't pass it.

133 131 Congress approves funds for Israel's Iron Dome Anti-Missile system today. 4 people voted against it:

Conyers
Kucinich
Paul
Stark

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 20, 2010 06:49 PM (0GFWk)

A collection of 4 assholes.

134

Let's quit talking about Jim Crow as though it was purely a southern phenomenon.

It wasn't.

Sure, they had laws on the books, but the northern states were masters of de facto Jim Crow.

135 What the fuck did Paul say that was so controversial? I've listened to both the NPR clip and the Maddow clip and I don't get it.

136 Bachelor #2, what kind of vegetable would you be?

137 129 Why then, did the first blacks elected to Congress come from the southern states and not the northern ones?

And why were they all, every last one of them, Republicans?

Come on, GOP, this isn't hard... it's all there for you...

138 It's also worth a few minutes to read Taranto's tale on this.  The journalists covering this have been awful.

139 What the fuck did Paul say that was so controversial? I've listened to both the NPR clip and the Maddow clip and I don't get it. Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 20, 2010 06:52 PM (sGwNK) He is running for the Senate, not some esoteric President of a debating society. It was a stupid thing to say. He has gone from a great victory to being on the defensive over night. This is not way to take back the Senate

140 What the fuck did Paul say that was so controversial? I've listened to both the NPR clip and the Maddow clip and I don't get it.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 20, 2010 06:52 PM (sGwNK)

Madcow asked him 25 times whether he thought it was right for the government to say you couldn't discriminate because of race at your lunch counter and he wouldn't say "yes I'm down with that". Instead he avoided answering.

141 John Stossel defends Rand Paul: http://is.gd/ci5dE

142 Dr. Spank,

remember, the only good nuance is a liberal nuance ...

143

Less Rand Paul.

More Paul Lynde.

144

bottom line - Rand Paul won, he won easily, and he's going to win in November.

there will be more like him coming, so get used to it.

145 Ace, your #124 was almost entirely non-responsive to the point I was making. Which is that the CRA, in granting federal authority over certain private voluntary associations goes beyond the bounds of the powers granted under the 13th - 15th amendments that you've been referring to. Look at today's civil rights enforcement regime and tell me that it's confined to the "badges and incidents of servitude". I wasn't saying that constitutional amendments can't grant new powers to government, I was saying that legislation can't.

146 My final take-away on this: Rand Paul was technically right, but between his evasive answers and poor choice in media outlets, and the stupidity of the general population, it would have been better politically to not have been right in this case. Correct?

147 >>>Let's quit talking about Jim Crow as though it was purely a southern phenomenon. >>>It wasn't. >>>Sure, they had laws on the books, but the northern states were masters of de facto Jim Crow. There is some truth in that but... well, one can argue stealth racism by zoning is worse than in your face WHITES ONLY/NO COLOREDS ALLOWED racism, but I sort of think it's not really worse, and, anyway, they're both bad. I'm not trying to pick on Southerners, except to say... it's time to move on. A defeated people react to their defeat in a lot of different ways. The South became defiant and proud, and romaticized their defeat, and so on, which is one of the typical reactions to defeat. I understand -- well, superficially -- the psychology here, the need to defy, the need to honor ancestors, the need to argue the South's honor in the face of history written, as it always is, by the victors, the North. I get that and I don't think most southerners are racist, or at least not any more racist than anyone else. But I find that much of this has mutated into something wrong and kind of ugly, where we end up getting straight-faced arguments that the Southern cause was purely honorable -- state's rights, just that abstract position, state's rights -- and that Jim Crow was a defensible transition from one system to the other and would have proceeded smoothly if not for the interference of the arrogant north and "trouble-makers" like MLK (MLK is usually called a trouble-maker in these tellings, upsetting the apple cart that most people, including blacks, actually liked,) and all the rest of it. The Southern people are good and noble and entitled to their pride. But this does not need to be taken THIS far, where we start getting these bizarre mutant interpretations of history and this excessive defensiveness about carpetbaggers and Yankees to the point where we end up saying that the Constitution -- a document about freedom if nothing else -- actually supports a regime in which large segments of the population are kept as peons by force of law (and tradition). Stop! One can be proud of one's ancestors and one's kin without arguing that they are and always were without fault.

148

private citizens are not bound by law to practice fairness, equality or justice, a private citizen has the right to be as big of an asshole as they choose.

when the government infringes that right it is abusing it's power.

149 there will be more like him coming, so get used to it.

Should we get the crosses and cans of lighter fluid ready now?

150 >>>Ace, your #124 was almost entirely non-responsive to the point I was making. Which is that the CRA, in granting federal authority over certain private voluntary associations goes beyond the bounds of the powers granted under the 13th - 15th amendments that you've been referring to. If your decision to exclude blacks from public businesses (businesses supposedly open to the public) were a one-off thing, you'd be right. If most other businesses joined you in this exact same bigoted (and liberty-reducing) practice, then there's a problem, because your action, harmless if performed by only you, is repeated by most business owners throughout a state, you have effectively, by private -- but coordinated -- action reduced a segment of the population to the status of peons, not quite slaves but also not free men, with highly restricted rights and owing certain obligations such as deference to the master or overlord class. Don't you find it odd that that the same time these "private" decisions were being made (all in the same direction) those same people -- who served as aldermen, mayors, prosecutors, etc., or at least voters -- were simultaenously promulgating LAWS codifiying these practices? There is an old saying that your freedom to extend your fist ends at my nose -- i.e., when you draw blood. Your freedom to discriminate against an identifiable and much poorer minority ends when it too draws blood, when 85% of your cohort make the exact same decisions which has the cumulative action of making one race, IN PRACTICE, and often too in law itself, subservient to and inferior to another.

151 1st itÂ’s Kentucky he may gain Dem voters with that line of thought. 2nd The Alex jones. People are starting to believe that crap. Both points are way off The Reservation. But commenters can sit in thier ivory towers and be Shocked, shocked that certain regions of the country are starting to doubt the intent of the US Govt. Call it Tinfoil or a grain of salt. I guess the answer is in the coming polls and election.

152

private citizens are not bound by law to practice fairness, equality or justice, a private citizen has the right to be as big of an asshole as they choose.

when the government infringes that right it is abusing it's power.

Posted by: shoey at May 20, 2010 07:09 PM (yCH89)

Right on! you could start a new political party based on that. Call it the Asshole Party! Run on a platform of resegregation.

153

I am in no way defending the Jim Crow Laws, of course the Jim Crow Laws were unconstitutional and wrong because they were LAWS!

this issue has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws, this issue is about private property rights.

154 To argue otherwise is to argue the constitution doesn't mean anything, becuase you have a set of natural law principles which trumps anything written in the constutiton.

This is precisely what the some wings of the libertarian movement believes.  That anything that interferes with their exercise of their freedom, based on their fucked up reading of the Declaration of Independence, is wrong and doesn't have to be obeyed.  Usually they dress it up as classic liberalism or original intent of the founders or some other such crap.

155 This is why we always have these silly hypotheticals -- "I can refuse to serve a Frenchman if I like." Indeed you can, because your action is unlikely to be repeated by any other busniness man for hundreds of miles -- your one-man crusade against the French will not in fact harm the Frenchman at all. You'll only lose his business. But that's what we're talking about. We did not formerly have a system where some businesses refused to serve whites, some refused to serve blacks, some refused the serve the "Green people" who alway pop up in these laundry lists, or their close cousins the "purple people," etc. No, they were all deciding not to serve N*ggers (pardon the slur, making a point), and to the extent they served N*ggers, they were making sure they knew they were inferior and quarantined from the FULL citizens. Hey, we're missing out on some business from the blacks -- Oh I know! We'll serve them, but make them come in through the back door, and only serve them at special tables! If we ignore context and history, you'd be right -- if this were some one-off decision made by a single crank, it surely would not be cause for a general reduction in individual liberty. We could and can handle the occasional crank without altering the constitution. BUt this was in fact NOT the situation at all, not even nearly, and if we're going to have an intelligent conversation you are required to admit that fact. We are talking about a conspiracy -- or at least a widely-adhered to practice -- of MOST businesses and always against the same group of would-be peons. And I do think this is a type of peonage -- a black peasantry -- and I do think the word "slavery" tends to cover that notion, too.

156 Didn't anyone listen to me on The Laura Ingrahams show today? I clearly stated that I do not oppose the CRA and applaud its good. I feel as "listened to" as the governor of Arizona. Can we say "swiftboating?"

157

Nor do I. Meanwhile, if a Republican gives a "politically correct" answer to a question, the circular-firing-squad springs into action and calls them a RINO.

 

Posted by: Moron in a Leopard Snuggie at May 20, 2010 07:19 PM (Ks4nX)

Let me ask you the same question then.  Do you think it's ok that the federal government by law says that you have to let black people eat at your lunch counter?

158

And I do think this is a type of peonage -- a black peasantry -- and I do think the word "slavery" tends to cover that notion, too.

This is the problem many of us are having with your argument.  Slavery is a very definite term... and its the one the Constitution uses.

If you want to change that definition to include Peonage, then you need to AMEND the Constitution to say that.  Otherwise you are using the "living document" argument... ie the Constitution means whatever I SAY it means, not what the words on the paper actualy are.

159 Doesn't this just go back to the Happy-meal-advertising-food thread where the entire discussion evolved (de-volved?) to one thing: Level of acceptable power of the government.

I think ace is in the right here, up until circa 1990; when the CRA and the resulting precedence, similar to the Commerce Clause, became a tool of re-segregation.  The CRA righted large wrongs, but because of the overall statist shift in the government, it became a wrong in and of itself.

What was initially disconcerting for me is that this would be the second or third time that the slippery slope argument has been absolutely maligned by our host, despite overwhelming evidence that the slope is indeed slippery. The latest was in the Happy-meal argument, and this is the second.

ace is, as a whole, correct, especially on the "Is this a good topic to bring up for a Senate candidate." However, the world has consistently proven that when given an inch, the govt. takes a mile. This is why conservatives should be exceedingly weary of compromise on the powers of govt.

What's with all the knocking on libertarians? Or should I presume that most of the Moronosphere means big "L" Libertarians.

160 The "politically correct "answer also happens to be the right one, and if you don't want to have arguments over it (as I don't), you ought to contact your beloved promulgators of the "non politically correct" line you favor and ask them to stop making an issue here themselves. You guys toss this crap out there, and then basically say, "Hey, let's not argue, can we all agree I'm right and move on?" Well -- no! We can't agree you're right. Knowing that your position is not universally accepted, even among conservatives, can you agree to not inject it into the debate? I know that's not fair-- YOU Didn't inject it. And even Rand Paul didn't INTEND to inject it. But inject it he did. So, look, stop blaming those who disagree with Rand Paul -- and you -- for arguing this. I would have been far happier to learn Paul agrees with me. He couldn't say that; he had to tell me I'm wrong. So here I am, telling him he's wrong.

161 Repub's have a pocket full non-conformist Libertarians.  The Lib-tards have a majority of far left kooks and crooks.  So the lamestream media focuses on who?

162 Even if you believe the Civil Rights Act accomplished a lot of good, there was still no reason to make it federal. State governments could have each enacted their own versions, and the one with the best version would have been the most attractive to open-minded, tolerant people. One-size-fits-all policies never seem to work as well as advertised.

States with bad laws only hurt people who want to live in states with bad laws. People who want good laws will either convince a majority of voters to support them or move to a better state. The source of all tyranny is the belief that freedom does not promote virtue. Giving people more freedom allows the most virtuous to become the most prosperous.

163 Whoa, ace commander Jim. You're getting into arguing those "side points"  that you originally said were best not to get into right now.

164 Are you asking me for here in the present day does the federal government need such laws or do I need the context of history from the 1950s or so?

Posted by: Dave C at May 20, 2010 07:26 PM (qmecx)

I am asking you today, do you think you should be able to discriminate against black people? It's a simple question.

165 >>> Even if you believe the Civil Rights Act accomplished a lot of good, there was still no reason to make it federal. State governments could have each enacted their own versions... Um, dude? Please. The state governments were foursquare in favor of Jim Crow -- THEY PASSED THE JIM CROW LAWS and they were the ones challenging the feds' rights to interfere. Sure, states "could have" passed these laws. They didn't because the states were actually in favor (overall) in continuing the state-enforced peonage of blacks. This is like saying "Why did Kirk have to blow up Khan's ship? Khan could have prevented the Genesis device from being activated." Yes, COULD HAVE, didn't want to. Wanted to activate it. Thus, the need for Kirk. I think I'm going to start a post on "Khan's Rights."

166 Jeebus, Kudlow is still pushing his strong V shaped recovery. He has a different understanding of charts than I do.

167 BS.

When blacks were unable to do business with white businessmen, they developed and nurtured a cadre of black businessmen with which they could do business.

There were black laundries, black grocers, black bakers, black hotel owners, black theater owners, black publishers, black railroad engineers, black miners, black movie directors, black farmers, black musicians, black preachers.  There were black butchers, black cowboys, blacks soldiers, black teachers, black used car salesmen, black insurance salesmen, black chemists - George Washington Carver ring a bell?, black barbers and beauticians, black seamstresses, black cooks, in a thriving and often segregated, society.

The idea that passive and helpless blacks needed kindly white business owners to take pity on them on open up their shops is pretty damn racist on its own merits.

With the CRA, the per centage of black business owners has decreased and not increased; although, the number of black professionals, with access to better education, has increased.

Could we please talk about reality and not the history of the US as presented by the movies and Howard Zinn?

168 You know, a nation that wishes to be ignorant and free wishes for what never was and never will be.

I don't have any idea what Mr. Rand's specific beef with the Civil Rights Act would be. But if it is anything to do with elasticizing the Commerce Clause in order to combat segregation, then perhaps it is time to see if this country is grown-up to make a nuanced distinction and actually be able to responsibly exercise the popular sovereignty that is the people's by right.

One can be very happy that segregation was defeated and still say "Perhaps we should consider, though, that using the commerce clause accomplished a good while opening up the route to abuses by statists one day, and perhaps we should take the good of segregation and today reject the method used as being a case of 'good cases make bad law'--or the exception proves the rule."
 
One can be very happy that one's forefathers got one to a certain place, and be happy an issue is settled, without having to say that all the methods used are ones that should either be used for all times and causes, or even maybe should have been used in the first place.

After all--I am very happy America exists. I think America is a unparalleled force for good in the world. But I cannot say that the means used to create America (forcing existing peoples off their lands) were good, nor that it is a fit method for either now or the future.

In short, I thank the past for the good, and merely add that if they had to achieve that good in a certain way, then they had to do it in a certain way, and I understand the reasons, but perhaps they will not be too offended if I say that the method perhaps should be one examined to see if it is truly consistent with liberty and a government ultimately controlled by the people. For if a method cannot be examined because it has been associated with a cause, however noble and righteous that cause was, then is not the path then laid open to evil and manipulative men? Just because Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion does not mean that we celebrate suspension of the writ as an unalloyed good--but as a measure found necessary at the time, and also a measure that can be abused.

And it is the ability to be grown-up to say that something can have both good and ill in it that will allow this Republic to continue to be self-governing and prosperous.

 

169

the idea that segregation lived on for a hundred years after the civil war, based alone, on the attitudes and bias of individual citizens is riduculous. Governmental institutions illegally perpetutated by law segregation, this was driven by a small minority of ppl with wealth, influence and a big huge axe to grind. if the Courts had adhered to the Constitution and struck down all segregation law from the very beginning, nature would have taken it's rightful course and a just balance achieved.

the actions of individual ordinary citizens, left to their own devices, are better at achieveing a just balance than any number of self-appointed moral busybodies imposing their own idea of "balance" on everyone else.

170 Rand Paul is an imbecile, and we're going to come to regret the fact that he calls himself a Republican.

171 >>But I find that much of this has mutated into something wrong and kind of ugly, where we end up getting straight-faced arguments that the Southern cause was purely honorable -- state's rights, just that abstract position, state's rights -- and that Jim Crow was a defensible transition from one system to the other

To Southerners, at the time, it was about state rights, whether the state could continue to classify people as property, as stated in the Constitution. The states, back then, were closer to being sovereign nations then what we think of as states today. Lee, as it's been famously recalled, chose his home country, Virginia, over the US. After the Civil War, Jim Crow was clearly an affront to the newly amended constitution and should have been struck down.

172 Can we agree on that question?

Posted by: Dave C at May 20, 2010 07:34 PM (qmecx)

You sound exactly like Rand Paul did when he was asked that question. My real heart felt answer is no and my political answer would damn sure be no. The egg thing does piss me off though.

173 >>>The idea that passive and helpless blacks needed kindly white business owners to take pity on them on open up their shops is pretty damn racist on its own merits. Right, we always have to get back to that idea, that the people with the No Coloreds Allowed signs weren't racist; it was the trouble-making Yankees who were the real racists. The argument always eventually becomes "Blacks had it pretty sweet under Jim Crow and liked it, and would not have objected, had it not been for the interference of carpetbaggers determined to cause trouble where none existed." This argument -- that "No Coloreds Allowed" signs were no big deal and didn't bother blacks -- from, I have to note, people who get very angry indeed at any discrimination directed in their direction. Discrimination against whites happens to bother me very much, and not just intellectually -- it's an emotional thing too. I get PISSED OFF at laws that seem to treat whites disfavorably. Do you not get that maybe blacks were sort of pissed off at Jim Crow? Or are you going to list all the wonderful economic accomplishments blacks were PERMITTED to achieve by their white overclass masters?

174 "The state governments were foursquare in favor of Jim Crow -- THEY PASSED THE JIM CROW LAWS and they were the ones challenging the feds' rights to interfere."

This is just not true. If every state wanted Jim Crow laws, they would have all put them into their constitutions, or even amended the federal constitution.

You're exaggerating the demand for discriminatory laws. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that a majority of politicians who voted for the CRA were re-elected. Americans wanted antidiscrimination laws. Many states had them already.

175 181  And worse, will be discriminated against by the GOVERNMENT... which is clearly UnConstitutional.

176 Now, say one was back in 1964. I probably would have said that if one wishes to discuss a Constitutional amendment to solve the problem, one would have my support. But perhaps the political support did not exist to get such an amendment through--most likely, in fact--and a political expediency was found via other clauses in the Constitution. Well, okay. I could probably live with that--at the time, while realizing violence was being done to a very important concept and that maybe one day we should make that right.

Today we face a problem where there are basically no de facto restrictions on the national government, to the detriment of liberty, and it arises out of many actions in the 1930s and 1960s, some needed, some not; and to say that we in no way, shape, or form can examine the matter as adults because it is bad politics essentially means we truly don't have a real Constitution that is a hard stop on what a majority wants--because we will bend every time in order to not be picked on by the media. To which all I can say is Sic Transit Gloria Mundia. 

177 Ace - the signs No Irish/No Indians/No Dogs were found in ... what part of the country exactly?  um... New York City!  a small backwater town in Mississippi, if I recall my geography correctly.

178 My kids are going to be discriminated against by the simple act of applying for college because they aren't the right color.

And it's the narrow end of the egg.

Posted by: Dave C at May 20, 2010 07:40 PM (qmecx)

You're changing the frigging subject and reinforcing my point that because some/alot of people were assholes we ended up with the laws we have.

If you asked me if it was ok to discriminate against white people my answer would also be no. Both heartfelt and politically.

179 Right, we always have to get back to that idea, that the people with the No Coloreds Allowed signs weren't racist; it was the trouble-making Yankees who were the real racists.

Who the mofo said this?

180 Is anyone here actually supporting the idea that state law that requires segregation is ok? Or is it the idea that everyone has the right  to personally discriminate, and be a douche, with respect to their own business or whatever?

181 #163 gets it. Its the CRA as applied, its the cereal, its health care. Do you think you should be able to discriminate against black people? Yeah, if you want to discriminate against blacks, green, polka-dotted you should be able to without the government making you not. Black Panthers are more than welcome to discriminate against me. I don't agree with supremecist assholes of any stripe, but I am far less comfortable with the thought police running around fixing wrongs.

182 You did. Quote: >>>The idea that passive and helpless blacks needed kindly white business owners to take pity on them on open up their shops is pretty damn racist on its own merits. The racists, it turns out, are those opposed to the Jim Crow regime.

183 Any society that has enough political support for antidiscrimination laws doesn't need them.

184 >>> Or is it the idea that everyone has the right to personally discriminate, and be a douche, with respect to their own business or whatever? Everyone is arguing this point; the state-actor point seems settled/conceded/agreed.

185 @188 I think the consensus is that state law preventing segregation is ok, and fed law to prevent segregation as to govt is ok. I think the hang up is to private individuals and busineses

186 128 Oh and by the by, the Dow dropped near 400 points today.

Just in case anybody gave a rat's fuck while you were all busy discussing the size of Rand Paul's anus.

Posted by: My 401K Just Imploded at May 20, 2010 06:46 PM (gLNLT)

Who cares?  I mean, seriously, who cares?  If you're not planning on retiring before the end of the week, you shouldn't worry about how much the DOW dropped today.  If the drop means you're gonna get margin calls, well, that's on you for hanging your ass out in the wind like that.

187

the Law is not allowed to discriminate - people are and do and will continue to no matter how much Law is written.

the Law does not control people, people control themselves (or don't)

good Law punishes a provable wrong, bad Law attempts and fails to change people's hearts and minds.

188 Sorry, it's hard to catch up sometimes, but it's good to have a job.

189 @186 Discriminating against persons is morally wrong. Cheating on your spouse is morally wrong. Federal laws against either is crazy, and law supplants morality.

190 Hey Ace, The Federal Government, and various state governments, do not have the right to discriminate in employment, policy, or enforcement of rights towards any individual based on the color of their skin. However, if I build a restaurant that has a big sign out front that says, "Whites Only-No Coloreds Allowed" then that is my own goddamn business, and no government has any right to tell me who I can and cannot do business with. And if every other restaurant owner on my street, in my town, or in the state chooses to do the same, that frequency in exercising the right doesn't make it any less of a right. If I'm a racist cock-bag, that's my own fucking business, little of yours, and precisely ZERO of the Federal governments'. Either something is a right or it isn't. This "you have the right to, but..." attitude is what will lead to the destruction of this country. And if that attitude prevails, we'll deserve to dissolve.

191 @195 Precisely. You can't legislate morality

192 The problem solved in 1964 arose because the law and Constitution clearly said one thing, and it was ignored and a majority (in the South) did what they wanted to do anyway, to the oppression and misery of millions.

To then fight that discrimination that was based upon twisting clear words to do what one wished by twisting clear words and concepts to do what one wished is perhaps necessary, but at some point it would be nice if we could do right not just because it is right, but in the right way too.

Because doing right by doing wrong eventually leads to all sorts of other wrongs, made right in this case only by the fact that tens of millions had their humanity restored, and the wrong we may face today by right being done perhaps the wrong way in 1964 still has not yet progressed so far that it can not be righted.

Therefore, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was done, it done good, and perhaps it is time to look at whether methods used in it themselves should also be done, as in through. The Commerce Clause cannot cover everything under the sun, as it will be used to cover everything under the sun.

193 Do you think you should be able to discriminate against black people? Yeah, if you want to discriminate against blacks, green, polka-dotted you should be able to without the government making you not.

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 07:46 PM (PUC8V)

Yeah, well I disagree along with the majority of Americans and that is why we have the CRA, because people not only thought it was fine to discriminate a large number practiced it.

 

194 In todays world, even though the person probably will go out of business shortly in 98% of the country, if it's his lunch counter and he doesn't want to serve blacks, he should be free to do so..

Okay, but today's world is only like today's world because the federal government forced desegregation.  The fear is it might go back to being 1965's world if the CRA was rolled back.  I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it's not true, either.

195 Its a question of the freedom to associate (and its flip side not to)

196 @202 Do a clear majority agree with the law and its progeny or rather its intention? Means or ends? I agree wholeheartedly with the intentions (ends) but the means are in err.

197

The professional Republican answer to Maddow's question would have been to talk about the provisions in the CRA that needed to be corrected or suspended.

For example, the racial gerrymandering of legislative districts in the South by the Federal government.  That would have won support by many reasonable people (ie non-leftists) and, if adopted, would have created more Republican legislators.

198 @Adriane

You talk as if life under Jim Crow were some sort of African American wonderland.  Bull crap.  All those people marched on Selma and boycotted the buses, and rallied on the mall in Washington because they were second class citizens, not because they were expressing pleasure with the way life was going.

As an aside I was stationed in Millington TN in the early 80's and there were still signs in restaurants and  barber shops saying no blacks.  The Navy placed those businesses off limits of course but they were there I got written up my first day there because I went to get a hair cut at the barbershop across the street from the hospital and it was one of the off limits establishments.  I didn't know it but the MAAs didn't care.  Occasionally there would be a cross burning out in the woods between Millington and Raleigh Springs too. I never saw any actual Klan but you would see the burning cross.

199 @203 One of the biggest ways to isolate yourself in society today is to be labeled a racist (thats why it works so well). If the CRA was repealed tomorrow, we wouldn't go back. The civil rights era was effective because it showed how wrong the practice was, not any laws that were added.

200 >>>For example, the racial gerrymandering of legislative districts in the South by the Federal government Sure... but you know, right, that that winds up benefiting Republicans and harming the Democrats? Not saying that makes it right! Just saying, unintended consequences.

201 In todays world, even though the person probably will go out of business shortly in 98% of the country, if it's his lunch counter and he doesn't want to serve blacks, he should be free to do so..

But yet because of Civil Rights and the involvement of the Federal Government is the reason why he would go out of business.

Posted by: Dave C at May 20, 2010 07:50 PM (qmecx)

Well that's your opinion and you are free to have it. I wouldn't suggest running for office on that platform or putting it on your resume though. I can't tell you how strongly I disagree though. I am old enough to remember when that shit was going on.

202 @212 But he's not free to have his opinion you see...

203 The people with "No Coloured" signs were as racists as all hell. 

And, they were often ignored by "Coloured" people who took their business else where and shopped were they were welcomed and enjoyed giving business to other black people like themselves.

One of the first black millionaires in the US was a women who founded Madam Bertha's Hair Relaxer.

Did not use a white bank for capital, did not sell in white stores, and did not use white salesmen.

Would her business life be easier under a non-segregated country?  Well, no.  Because she made and marketed a product that only blacks (at the time) wanted and she did it via the black business network that existed at the time...

Again, the idea the post Civil War blacks were a bunch of watermelon chewin' yokels waiting for Northern Whites to "Save Them" is racist against blacks, who, post Civil War, developed thriving - albeit, often segregated, communities.

Anyone who says otherwise does not know the 'black history' of the US.

Who invented the gas mask?
Who organized the first public ambulance service?
Who performed the first American open heart surgery?

204 >>>The fear is it might go back to being 1965's world if the CRA was rolled back. I'm not sure that's true, but I'm not sure it's not true, either. It's almost not true except to a limited extent... but there will be patches where very locally it comes back, and what do you do there? But the more important question is would it have continued in 1965 if not for the CRA.

205 @214 Who invented Peanut butter, food of the Gods. Nuff said

206 However, if I build a restaurant that has a big sign out front that says, "Whites Only-No Coloreds Allowed" then that is my own goddamn business, and no government has any right to tell me who I can and cannot do business with.

Let's say someone eats at your restaurant and tries to skip out on his bill.  You call the cops, and they come pick the guy up.  If I were a black guy living in your city, I think I'd have a pretty damn legitimate argument that the cops that I pay for shouldn't be responding to calls from Restaurante Apartheid.

Same goes for all the other taxpayer-supported services.  Will you be okay with the black firefighters lounging by when your restaurant is burning?

207

203 So you would continue to limit CLEAR Constitutional rights, of Property, and Association, because of a POTENTIAL that some may abuse them?

If so, then they are not Rights.  Its clear that Rights may be taken away by the Courts in case of clear wrongdoing (although the Affirmative Action collective punishment is really problematical IMO), or limited by the Constitution itself...

But without proof of current wrongdoing, you would take away Constitutional Rights?  Its like the voting Rights Act... which was needed many years ago... but the law is still on the books long after the problems it was there to solve, are gone... and the Fed Courts are STILL involved in Voting Processes clearly given to the States... because they "may" have problems later?

208 But he's not free to have his opinion you see...

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 08:00 PM (PUC8V)

Sure he does, this is America. He can run for office on overturning every civil rights law ever passed. He can run for office to put slavery back in place and no one will stop him. I just don't think he would be to successful.

209 @219 But you already told the shopkeeper what to think, and what to do with his (i guess his) business. While we're policing thought there, why stop? This is America, and the issue

210 217: The issue with your reducto ad absurdium is that the police and fire are government provided (or majority funded). Thus, failure of the aforementioned "black firefighters" would be massively derelict in their duty, however "correct" the result of their in-actions would be. They would then be removed from their positions and suffer deprivation of liberties because of their actions. It is all still their choice.

I perhaps place too much emphasis on discipline, duty, and honor when it comes to public servants, but that is a cultural thing. I would like to think that they would still put the fire out, because it would be their expletive job, same as any soldier fights to protect the rights of half the dimwitted liberals in this country or any doctor that treats whatever patient comes across the ER threshold.

211 But you already told the shopkeeper what to think, and what to do with his (i guess his) business. While we're policing thought there, why stop?

This is America, and the issue

Posted by: Jollyroger at May 20, 2010 08:09 PM (PUC8V)

Yeah I see your point and if we didn't have the history we have regarding black people I might even agree with you. We do have that history though and it's a bitch.

212 Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 08:02 PM Way to completely ignore the first paragraph of my post. Government may not discriminate. Individuals are perfectly free to.

213

again this isn't about group rights, nothing in the Constitution is about group or collective rights, this is about individual rights.

does a person have a right to be treated fairly? - the answer is as clear as it is simple.

a person has a right to be treated fairly by the Law and the Government

a person does not have a "right" to be treated fairly by another person.

214 @223 I see your point as well. I think there are no easy ways around the fact that humanity is flawed. Recently, though I have begun to see the government in a less, ummm... benign light.

215 I should amend my last, so you don't be an childish asshole and worm your way into an unintentional whole, "Government (to include its agents) may not discriminate. Individuals are perfectly free to."

216 chad -

your statement ...@Adriane

You talk as if life under Jim Crow were some sort of African American wonderland. ...

is not correct.

What I am arguing is that life under Jim Crow was not:
1) limited to the south
2) was not socially unacceptable in other parts of the country, hence the "No Irish" and "No Pollak" signs
3) was applied to black AND poor whites
4) is already illegal due to the Freedom of Association found in the Constitution, and therefor does not need another set of laws
5) has been taken to the extreme of "equality of results" as opposed to the "equality of opportunity"

and 6) Frequently ignores that under a 2nd class system in the US, blacks prospered in ways that they did not in other parts of the world, because in other parts of the world 2nd class anybodies were exterminated.  American blacks began the process of becoming the wealthiest group of blacks in the world after the Civil War, not after the passage of the CRA.  In fact, looking at the Moniyan (sp?) study on black illegitimacy, black wealth and black business ownership has decreased, not increased since the CRA passage.  The ability of blacks to express their equality BY PATRONIZING WHITE BUSINESSES has lead, in fact, to the reduction of the black entrepreneurial base.

217

Well, I'm glad this issue is settled.

What's up next?

218 Man, are there ever a lot of titles in the Civil Rights Act. Wonder how ol' Rand thinks about busing?

219 Pay attention.

Posted by: Dave C at May 20, 2010 08:16 PM (qmecx)

Sorry if I got you wrong, really. I was having trouble squaring your first paragraph "should be free to do what he wanted" and your second one.

If you are meaning he would be free to break the law if he wanted then I agree with you I guess. You are free to break most laws though as long as you don't get caught.

220 The issue with your reducto ad absurdium is that the police and fire are government provided (or majority funded).

The funding is exactly the issue.  The police department is providing the restaurant is funded by taxpayers, some of whom can't enter this restaurant.

221 224 Ace's liver at May 20, 2010 08:02 PM

Way to completely ignore the first paragraph of my post. Government may not discriminate. Individuals are perfectly free to.

Posted by: Thesher at May 20, 2010 08:13 PM (qQwwI)

I didn't ignore anything.  You missed the entire point of what I wrote.

222 #230 -

weights, so that fast runners have enough of a handicap to let slower runners win occasionally ...

and you should see the masks - or beauty equalizers, as I like to call 'em -  I've developed for pretty girls to wear.

223 233: The residents of the poorer areas are not providing the police with tax dollars, yet they still should be patrolled. The restaurant is also providing the police with tax dollars, typically more so than any individual. Should the greater value than be placed on it?

224

We all hate the media, right?

Check this story out.

YOU MUST READ THE COMMENTS!

http://tinyurl.com/2bhfqoh

225 discrimination or jim crow laws said you can not integrate in your personal life if you wanted to by order of the state. the true negative of this law would say you are free to integrate in your personal life.

226 @239 South Africa didn't have the CRA to stop apartheid. India didn't have the CRA to end the British dominance. In the end, only the society can change itself.

227

If the CRA were to be magically rolled back this evening, I don't have any problems with the proverbial lunch counter posting a sign that said 'No blacks'. I also wouldn't have any issue with him going out of business soon after (or at least he would in 95% of the country)

Yeah, well we got off track, Madcows original question as was mine was is it ok with you for the federal government to prohibit the lunch counter guy from posting the no blacks sign.

I still think it fine for the government to do that as they do now. Paul couldn't bring himself to say that hence the long discussion an Paul's political troubles whatever they may be.

228 The restaurant is also providing the police with tax dollars, typically more so than any individual. Should the greater value than be placed on it?

Than any one individual?  Sure.  Than the non-white community as a whole?  Doubtful.  In any case, it doesn't matter - cities don't provide services based on how much people pay in taxes.

My point here is this issue isn't as clear cut as a simple question of property rights.  I see the property rights argument, but I don't think it holds up when the community is providing (and paying for) services.

229 Hey, I say, business owners should be able to ban all but whites, and only Anglos, oh, and only protestants. No banning of WASPs, however. Thats un Amerkan.

230 But I should also say I don't understand the financial regulation package...

That's okay, neither does Congress.

231 "a business owner be able to choose who they serve and who they don't is "peonage"?

I can't even believe this conversation is happening."

Welcome to the new "Conservative" movement. After about a couple decades of progressive/liberal/socialist dominance of the schools, press, and academia. Slow rot.

232 Hmm, too bad this conversation has seemed to die out.  But, I'll add my 2cents anyway, just in case.

I'll of course agree that Jim Crow was an unmitigated evil and it is right that it was ended.

But this is the part where I disagree with Ace the most:

"And I do think we'll suffer if there's too much of that, if the party seems to be gravitating towards the institutional position that Jim Crow may have been wrong but nowhere in the Constitution is there any power to stop the practice of peonage."

What, exactly, is "peonage"?  Do you mean sharecropping?  That practice ended largely in the 1930s and 1940s due to industralization of the farms (and with labor unions).  So you didn't need a CRA to end the abuses inherent in the sharecropping practice.

But if by "peonage" you mean a more general condition of someone working for another without having a great deal of control over his/her working environment, then that's where I run into difficulties.  Is the minimum wage guy working for McDonald's a "peon"?  (And by this I mean the actual definition of the word, and not its colloquial meaning as "flunky".  Of course he's a flunky.)  And if that's the case, is this a cause for concern for the federal government?  What is the difference between your arguments against peonage and the arguments by those who argue that the minimum wage should be raised so high that it ought to be a "living wage", enough to support a family on?  That would seem to be the "anti-peonage" position.

And I guess I just generally have a problem with the idea that the government should try to mold and shape society towards some higher ideal.  As a previous commenter noted, human beings are majority assholes and no state can change that while still respecting the individual liberty of the assholes to be assholes.

233 You're right Ace, what was going on before the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 was a formal system of treating Blacks as 2nd class citizens. They were excluded from voting, and those that were in power could ignore their interests with impunity. Not only were they prohibited from voting, they were kept off juries, denied the opportunity to work in most government jobs, and laws were passed to systematically keep them from even owning homes in certain neighborhoods, and getting decent treatment in public accommodations. It was shameful that it occurred in my country and that it was allowed to continue for so long.

You talk about how this system of "peonage" was both formal and informal. You are right. The same guy who owned a "fine" restaurant that banned Blacks from even eating their could very well serve on the city counsel and pass laws stating that anyone who operated a restaurant must have separate seating for Whites and Blacks. And, if you wanted to take a stand against this stifling discrimination, and open your own restaurant that allowed everyone with no restrictions on the seating, you would be shut down by local law enforcement.

Now, what's the best way to deal with all this? Had Congress followed the constitution, they could have banned the formal part of the peonage system, but that would still have left in place the informal part, right? Right! But, once the formal part was gone, you would have been able to go open a competing restaurant that didn't discriminate. No doubt it would have been slow going at first. Some people would have refused to eat in that restaurant, preferring the ones that catered to their prejudices. So be it. At the same time this was going one, we also had the beginnings of the fast food industry. Imagine how McDonald's would handle the situation. If they try to open a segregated restaurant in Mississippi, they could be picketed and boycotted in Chicago.

It was wrong for the federal government to exceed their constitutional authority, and arguments about how it was necessary because that is the only way to make it happen are just false. If discrimination was permitted under the law today, there would be some of it still going on (as there is anyway), but the widespread nature of it could never flourish on a purely informal basis.

234 Well, if the McDs was in a small, backwater town in Mississippi, any discussion of the minimum wage (or any other historical fact) would actually be a code for the repeal of Jim Crow Laws and the return of slavery, so argue carefully ...

235

Paul's position from all of his statements before he started equivocating is quite clear.  He doesn't think that the government (federal, state or local) should regulate how private businesses do anything.  This includes the prohibition against racial or gender discrimination in private accomodations, which is arguably the biggest and most important element of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  He has finally said he'd vote for it because he likes most of the bill, even though he is against the private discrimination elements of it.

Paul is clearly against racial discrimination.  That's fine.  But he thinks the government shouldn't prohibit any private business or private person from refusing to serve blacks, refusing to hire blacks or any such discrimination.  I wish he'd stop dodging the question (which is what he did throughout the Maddow interview) and just be straight about it.  If you're a libertarian, then just own up to it and be that guy.  If you think the government can't or shouldn't prohibit private discrimination, then just admit it openly and clearly and run on it.  Be open, be honest and see if you'll get elected.  Don't dodge, weave and obfuscate.

236 First, the state can ban Happy Meal toys because parents aren't strong enough to say "no" to their whiny brats without government help.

Then the Federal government has a general police power to force private individuals to do business with people whose business they don't want.

What sort of statism will Ace embrace tomorrow? I don't know, and I won't be here to find out. See you, pal. You had a pretty good run...

237 Let's say someone eats at your restaurant and tries to skip out on his bill.  You call the cops, and they come pick the guy up.  If I were a black guy living in your city, I think I'd have a pretty damn legitimate argument that the cops that I pay for shouldn't be responding to calls from Restaurante Apartheid.

Oh my God, this is so retarded. I don't even have to explain why. The world is a dumber place because you made this argument.

238 #251 - It's refreshing to see a conservative so openly embracing the Right to Discriminate.  I wish more conservatives would just be open and honest that they think this is a right which the government cannot infringe.  But then honesty wouldn't win conservatives many elections.

239 Sally:

What do you mean by "the right to discriminate"?

240 Pete, I mean that you and people like Rand Paul believe that there is an inherent right to discriminate that neither the federal, state nor local government has the lawful power to abridge. 

241

Ace, I'm sure everyone's sick of this but I'm going to try it one more time.

Take a look at your response to me in #153. Notice anything missing there? Like any actual reference to the constitution? I'm sure there are lots of "old sayings" that are perfectly reasonable, but I'd rather not have them substitute for the supreme law of the land.

You were right to say that those who would strike those provisions of CRA dealing with private behavior have to accept that the evil of private racial discrimination would continue at an ugly level for some time. I agree with that and accept that as a consequence of what I consider a proper understanding of the limits of federal power under the constitution. I also believe that such discrimination would have diminished greatly in a relatively short period of time because 1) it would have (correctly) been stripped of the support of governmental insitutions, and 2) the shame that much of the nation felt at seeing the forces of government arrayed against some of its citizens because of the color of their skin in the civil rights marches went a long way in changing the culture.

Now to the other half of my point. As I said, I accept the downside of my constitutional intrepretation. But you have to accept yours. Again, look at the kind of reasoning that you laid out in your post. That's what goes on when people want the government to have the power to do something they deem desireable. I can construct very similar arguments for why the government not only can, but MUST: institute universal health care, regulate carbon emissions, grant citizenship to anyone in the country no matter how they got here, or any number of other items on the liberal wish list. All of those arguments would be just as consitutionally legitimate as your train of argument in 153. 

242 Sally:

What do you mean by "inherent"? You're throwing a lot of words around. Please explain the difference between a "right to discriminate" and an "inherent right to discriminate." Otherwise it's just blather.

The federal government has no power to tell private individuals that they must do business with any particular individual. If the federal government has that power, you'll need to locate it in the Constitution for me. If you can't find it, then it doesn't matter whether there's a "right to discriminate." What matters is that the federal government lacks the power to issue laws in this area.

I have less of a problem with state governments telling businesses how to operate, because the states have general police power.

Let me ask you something: do you think there's an "inherent right" to be a racist? How about to publish a book mocking Christianity?

243 Oh good Sally the Troll is back.  I was wondering when you would return.  What's the matter, business at the DNC brothel a little slow now that Teddy Kennedy is gone?

You know, Sally, if you actually used your one remaining brain cell, you might realize that the so-called "right to discriminate" is part and parcel with freedom of association and the rights associated with private property.  For instance, suppose you owned a restaurant, and one day in walked Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Karl Rove all wanting a bite to eat at your fine establishment.  Would you serve them with a smile?  Would you pour their coffee politely?  Would you say "sorry, sir" when Dick Cheney sent his steak back to the kitchen for the third time because it wasn't cooked properly?  Hell no, you'd scream "GET OUT OF MY RESTAURANT YOU WARMONGERING FASCISTS!!!111!!!1!!!!"  You'd be discriminating against people you don't like.  And you know what?  I'd support you in your right to do that.  Because it's your property and your right and if you want to be a complete asshole you should have that right.

I support your right to come to this blog and freely associate with us, even as you call us names and impugn our reputations.  Lord knows why I support your right, for if I was half the fascist you accuse us conservatives of being, I'd have Karl Rove send you to Gitmo.

What is wrong here is to discriminate based on stupid characteristics like race.  It's not right, it's offensive, it's just plain stupid economically and socially.  The only real question in my mind is how should this injustice be corrected.  By the coercive power of the state?  By the gradual shift of social values?  As a conservative I don't believe government should deliberately work to "improve" a society - it is counterproductive and works to impede liberty in the long run.  The power to improve society rests with each of us as individuals.  Wasn't it Obama who said "we are the change we've been waiting for"?  I actually agree with that.  Funny how many leftists don't truly agree with that, instead they want government to force change onto others.

244

Pete, a right inherent in the Constitution.  And where can one find the federal government's power to prohibit such discrimination?  In the 13-15th amendments, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

"Let me ask you something: do you think there's an "inherent right" to be a racist? How about to publish a book mocking Christianity?"

Yes and yes.

245 Chemjeff.  Yes, I would kick them out of my establishment.  And that would not be in violation of the 1964 CRA or any other federal law.

246

Well said, Chem Jeff.

I'd also like to say that this thread is right in the hands of libs: divide and conquer; change/set the agenda; play into the raging Arizona "discrimination issue" and double the fun; twist or misstate words.

Are conservatives letting themselves be pwned?

247 Amendments 13 through 15? Seriously?

You know, for example, that 14 only applies to state actors, right? Not private citizens.

And what's this "commerce clause" business?

Actually... is there any activity under the sun that the federal government could not ban or mandate under the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause? Name one. Just one. And that includes things that would be forbidden by other areas of the Constitution. (No banning peaceful protest, for example). I'd like to know what the outer limits of the commerce clause are.

248 Admit it, Sally. You're sleeping with Ace.

249 Rand wants to end aid to Israel AND brig all the troops home now.

250 It's possible to agree on a problem without agreeing on the solution.

So often, and I hate to say "the left" but lets just say the left, uses this logical fallacy... if you disagree with the solution you are denying the problem... or you hate people... women, minorities, children, immigrants, whatever.    Because if you *cared* or even thought there was a problem, you'd agree with the solution.

This applies to just about everything.

Was the race situation in 1964 such that it all could be left to market forces and racial discrimination would end?  Arguably the answer was no.   True enough, in order to change laws public opinion generally has to have already gone through significant change, so it's not a given, either.

But does a person, even one who does not think that leaving well enough alone would have worked, have to agree on the solution to the problem?  

251 David Bernstein has a post up at Volokh that lays out my philosophy much more succinctly than my ramblings can even approach:

The basic libertarian position on civil rights is as follows: (1) Private discrimination should, in general, be legal (this includes affirmative action preferences, btw). Many libertarians would make exceptions for cases of monopoly power, and most would ban private discrimination when the government itself ensured the monopoly by law, as with common carriers like trains; (2) The government may not discriminate. If necessary, the federal government should step in to prevent state and local governments from discriminating; (3) The government may not force private parties to discriminate, and the federal government should, if necessary, step in to prevent state and local governments from forcing private parties to discriminate; (4) The government must protect members of minority groups and those who seek to associate with them from private violence. If the state and local government wonÂ’t do so, the federal government should step in; and (5) As part of the ban on government discrimination, and to prevent rent-seeking voters from taking advantage of the disenfranchised, members of all racial groups should be treated as individuals for voting purposes, and thus members of all groups should have equal voting rights. If state and local governments donÂ’t guarantee such rights, the federal government should step in.

As they say, read the whole thing: http://tinyurl.com/288c76t

252 Tip o' the iceberg, folks, tip o' the iceberg.

Wait until the legacy media gets hold of the tapes and transcripts of Rand Paul's several appearances on conspiracy nut Alex Jones' radio show.  There's going to be much screwier stuff to defend then, so keep your powder dry if you're randy for Rand.

It would have been much simpler just to vet this lunatic fringe nut - son of another lunatic fringe nut - before going "all in" backing him, but evidently that sort of diligence isn't in fashion for some of my brethren on the right. 

Look on the bright side:  at least all his Aryan Nation supporters haven't shown up marching in support of his "principled" stance against the darkies.

253

"The problem is that it would probably still be kind of needed in some areas, like who knows, a Mississippi swamp county of extremely poor blacks and where the one pharmacist--a white guy--DOES decide to stop serving coloreds."---ace

I knew it!  Ace is a raving anti-pharmientite!

254 @20 Yes, NOW, we have a prevailing condition in which this stuff is generally deemed toxic and such exercise in freedom would result in one's bankruptcy -- so people don't do this often. But would this have happened in 1964? No, indeed, it would not; or, at least, even if one thinks the South was abandoning Jim Crow organically and naturally (and without Yankee interference), it was still going strong and would have continued for decades. So you're saying that we don't need the CRA NOW, but you avoid the question of whether we needed it to accomplish this purpose THEN, which is the RELEVANT consideration. ----------------------------------------------------- @26 Yeah, but dude, don't pretend the two weren't closely related and mutually supporting. Jim Crow LAWS were state enforced. On the other hand, there was a Jim Crow social code -- that permitted/encouraged businesses to discriminate. You're saying the one can be stopped but the other can't; I guess one can make a technical reason why this should be the case. But honestly, the second one is just as important. Ace, I agree with your second argument (that public and private discrimination were closely linked and mutually supporting), but I also think it undercuts your first argument (that it was necessary and therefore proper for both to be outlawed). Governmentally enforced segregation and privately enforced segregation were indeed inextricably linked and mutually supporting (and the former was certainly the more powerful component). For that reason, it was not necessary for the federal government to outlaw private segregation. Outlawing legal segregation would have caused private segregation to rapidly disintegrate of its own accord, in the absence of its more powerful partner, or as you put it, "organically". Sure, "whites only" lunch counters and things of that nature would have persisted for a few more years, although not for many, in my opinion, and everyone agrees that is a bad thing to have those exist. However, in my opinion, the existence of segregated private businesses in ever-diminishing numbers for a few more years would have been a lesser evil than conferring upon the federal government the authority to dictate to citizens how they may dispense of their private property and with whom the must associate. Both are bad, but the former would have been short-lived, having been crippled and doomed by removal of actual, legalized Jim Crow. The latter is permanent, and can only grow and metastisize into areas which look less-and-less like protection of civil rights and more-and-more like limitless federal power.

255 127

In case anyone missed it, Ron Paul (and his son, same fucking nut) is no Barry Goldwater. They shouldn't even get to speak his name.

*spits on the ground*

256 I have virtually no opinion on Rand Paul, as I know very little about him, and I agree with Ace and most of you that his father is largely a paranoid cook. But I'm curious whether some of you are predisposed to assume the same of Rand Paul simply by virtue of the fact that he's Ron Paul's son. I think he handled this line of questioning somewhat poorly, but I don't think his apparent opinion on the subject is out-of-line. And while he may hold most or all of his father's views, it's not all that unusual for a guy to differ with his father broadly on questions of politics. Assuming he's Ron Paul redux, if indeed some of you are doing that, seems like a poor way to analyze the guy.

257 That should have been "kook", not "cook". I have no opinion on Ron Paul's culinary skills.

258 In case anyone's still reading: I grew up in "a backwater Mississippi town" and was 9 when the CRA was passed. The sermon that Sunday was "Without Liberty there is Tyranny." More to the point, the drugstore where I bought comics and a cherry coke at the soda fountain as often as I could tore out the soda fountain rather than serve blacks. *I* thought removing the soda fountain and its counter and tables was one of the stupidest things ever. I wasn't dumb enough to fall for it being the Federal Government's fault--it was the owner's, refusing to serve the people from the other side of the road.  And as this thread makes clear, there's still a heap o' stupid in this country. It very much was about lunch counters and soda fountains.

259

ßæßÊíá × Ïáíá ãæÇÞÚ × ãäÊÏíÇÊ ßæßÊíá × ÔÇÊ ÕæÊí × ÔÇÊ ßæßÊíá × Ýä ÊÇíã

260 I don't think libertarianism is that toxic. And I just cannot believe he would think Jim Crow laws are tolerated by libertarianism. Discrimination from private establishments, yes, but not much else. That's more a defense of property rights than the craziness you were insisting.