Rand Paul

[LonelyInVenice]

What's "public" about a private business?



So you believe that the government is a part owner in all businesses, and one with the authority to set policy?

BTW -- what's the rational premise for business licenses?

Fairness in all dealings. Including employment.

 

[opinterph]

Problem is, more and more people with lousy job performance get to keep their job and too many who would be the best in the job aren't hired or are let go.

… Also there's discrimination in favor of certain people and very often today lousy job performers get and keep the job.

Discrimination in hiring and promotions is nothing new. If anything, the situation has improved since the EEOC began operations in 1965. It has certainly helped to improve the situation for those who are covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But many people will unabashedly pronounce their prejudices and seem to think that it is quite legitimate to base their decisions on factors other than an applicant’s knowledge, skills, and abilities. Consider this recent discussion in Hot Topics:

Would you hire a homophobe?​

 

[opinterph]

An interesting aspect to me was that no one raised the issue of the distinction between companies confined to one state and those which straddle state lines. Arguably, the commerce clause slaps a line between those, so arguably the FedGov might legitimately make regulations for one but not the other.

The line is blurred because it is virtually impossible to avoid interstate commerce. If a restaurant serves food that originated from another state or relies upon items from other states to conduct its business, it is engaged in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate ... Ollie’s Barbeque, a family-owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964). [Link]

 

[MercuryJones]

"Was" not.

Cute.

And still not.

I am often dissatisfied with Obama's performance and deliverables. Just because I acknowledge that he's better than the actively anti-gay politician of your choice doesn't make me a supporter.

Maybe you guys need your own sub forum where you can sing the praises of politicians who oppose ENDA, start and support DOMA and want a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Maybe you could have a club: Fans of Anti-Gays.

 

[MercuryJones]

If Rand Paul (and you) gets his way, businesses would very quickly re-discriminate.

And in doing so would empower business owners to make a functional second class status for ethnic or other groups. Face it, if because of an arbitrary quality you can't function like an equal in society- if you can't go into a restaurant with your co-workers, or be seated with your potential client - you can't really be equal.

Moreover, and this is more to my point about Rand Paul, I could at least respect making a cogent constitutional argument supporting what he believes is the right to discriminate in businesses open to the public. But Paul pussed out and first evaded answering directly, and then fictionalized what happened to make himself a victim. If you are running for office and believe in the constitutional right of businesses open to the public to discriminate, then have the balls to say it and defend your position.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

And in doing so would empower business owners to make a functional second class status for ethnic or other groups. Face it, if because of an arbitrary quality you can't function like an equal in society- if you can't go into a restaurant with your co-workers, or be seated with your potential client - you can't really be equal.

Moreover, and this is more to my point about Rand Paul, I could at least respect making a cogent constitutional argument supporting what he believes is the right to discriminate in businesses open to the public. But Paul pussed out and first evaded answering directly, and then fictionalized what happened to make himself a victim. If you are running for office and believe in the constitutional right of businesses open to the public to discriminate, then have the balls to say it and defend your position.

Perfectly stated. Thank you.

 

[palemale]

And in Paul's dream world in which a pharmacy can tell a black woman she can't come in, if the woman resists, who will remove her?

Are our tax dollars to pay for police to enforce racial discrimination?

Excellent point.

 

[Pangelboy]

I love NPR.

Regarding the Civil Rights Act, Paul said he would've marched with Dr. King to get it passed, but voted against any and all clauses of the Act that would have prohibited businesses from discriminating.

The interviewer said he would've marched with King, but voted with Barry Goldwater.

It just tickled me.

 

[Kulindahr]

Access.

As I think you probably know, public accommodation is the term used in the Civil Rights Act, hence my usage.

It's far too broad a term.

I believe no business should decide who will be a second class citizen.

But you don't believe in private property, then, the way you mean this.

I don't believe a small town with one pharmacy should decide that a certain minority will not have access to pharmaceuticals, or that another minority can only enter the back door like a dog.

If you wish to defend a business owner's right to do so, it's up to you.

Now there's a not unreasonable distinction: businesses which provide services essential to life and health could be distinguished from those which do not. Thus your pharmacy would be required to serve everyone, but a barber would not; a grocery store would, while a hobby shop would not. Of course then you'd have endless law suits concerning what is "essential"....

And if Rand Paul wants to defend it, he should. But he was rather a big pussy about the whole Maddow thing, and it's fun to see how for all his bluster he's not above spinning the events so that he can avoid saying what he really thinks.

It's also interesting to see how like many of his fellows he has no discomfort with government intruding into the most personal choices a person can make about his or her own life.

As I saw it, Maddow was trying to stick him with the label of being in favor of discrimination, and he was trying to explain his position while avoiding that. For someone who must certainly have faced such a situation before, though, he was certainly clumsy about it. I kept thinking he should have said, "I'll answer that in a moment -- first let me provide some perspective", and set out some other examples. Given some of the things he said, he could have answered, "Yes, if a store owner wanted to keep anyone but whites from sitting at his lunch counter, that's his right, but it would also be the right of town citizens to organize a protest and boycott -- and I'd join them".

There's a very pragmatic political philosopher who describes very well the position Paul seems to be coming from, but I can't recall the name; at any rate, the driving notions are free use of private property and the free clash of ideas.

 

[Kulindahr]

He was ridiculed for crying like a little girl, as he did. All my observations were based on what is known about him. If you have evidence to the contrary, ball up and present it.

Where did he cry like a little girl? Is there a video some of you are watching and not the rest?

 

[Kulindahr]

Aren't private establishments protected by the police department and fire department? Doesn't the city pick up their garbage and pave the streets in front of their establishment? Does not the proprietor of the establishment get tax breaks for certain things, like for providing employee health benefits or depreciation of plant and equipment? Are not all of these things funded by tax dollars? Don't racial and ethnic minorities, or members of the LGBT community, pay taxes? Don't they serve their country in the military? Does a just society permit business owners who benefit so much at tax payer expense permit those businesses to discriminate against some of the people whose tax dollars made the operation of the business possible? I think the question answers itself.

Now there's an interesting argument.

But which of these services would anyone expect to be refused to a business which decided to discriminate? Maybe they could be required to have their own fire service, sewer service, etc.?

BTW, I've never been anywhere the city picks up the trash. It's usually a government-established monopoly, though, which is unconstitutional.

Fairness in all dealings. Including employment.

Fairness would mean allowing a person with private property to make his own rules.

Besides which, fairness is a requirement for business licenses, not a rational premise. Let me try again: from where does the authority arise to require someone to have a license to do business? As far as I can see, it's a statement of ownership over people.

The line is blurred because it is virtually impossible to avoid interstate commerce. If a restaurant serves food that originated from another state or relies upon items from other states to conduct its business, it is engaged in interstate commerce.

And the court is full of crap. That clause was meant to allow the federal government to keep the states from imposing fees or tariffs or other barriers to trade between them, not to extend authority over every aspect of life because things cross state lines.

 

[Kulindahr]

You're young and idealistic. If Rand Paul (and you) gets his way, businesses would very quickly re-discriminate.

And Rand Paul and I, and I suspect Poolerboy, would show up to protest and boycott them.

And in doing so would empower business owners to make a functional second class status for ethnic or other groups. Face it, if because of an arbitrary quality you can't function like an equal in society- if you can't go into a restaurant with your co-workers, or be seated with your potential client - you can't really be equal.

So you make second-class citizens out of all business owners?

What you're ignoring here is that other people would have choices, too: insurance companies could refuse to insure a business which didn't allow whites in the door, for example; plumbers could refuse to serve businesses which didn't let Asians in the door; etc.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Now there's a not unreasonable distinction: businesses which provide services essential to life and health could be distinguished from those which do not. Thus your pharmacy would be required to serve everyone, but a barber would not; a grocery store would, while a hobby shop would not. Of course then you'd have endless law suits concerning what is "essential"....

Uh huh. And how much regulation and government is going to be required to keep your little Utopian wonderland sorted-out? Are police going to be required to enforce discrimination? If a merchant decides to refuse service, is it then up to police officers to enforce the refusal? And what shall we call the agency set-up to regulate this little scheme? The office of legitimate discrimination? "You, Mr. Appliance store, you may discriminate all you want. But you, Ms. Pharmacist, you cannot discriminate! Oh, wait, there's a non-discriminating pharmacy within a thousand feet of your business, so, YES, you MAY discriminate!"

As soon as you make exceptions to the rules, Kuli, you open the doors for bigger government and greater costs to the public.

Edit: Not to mention, more lawyers and lawsuits to draw the boundaries.

 

[poolerboy]

Aren't private establishments protected by the police department and fire department? Doesn't the city pick up their garbage and pave the streets in front of their establishment? Does not the proprietor of the establishment get tax breaks for certain things, like for providing employee health benefits or depreciation of plant and equipment? Are not all of these things funded by tax dollars? Don't racial and ethnic minorities, or members of the LGBT community, pay taxes? Don't they serve their country in the military? Does a just society permit business owners who benefit so much at tax payer expense permit those businesses to discriminate against some of the people whose tax dollars made the operation of the business possible? I think the question answers itself.

You could all of those things to the citizens themselves. Therefore, what? The government can censor your free speech if it finds it offensive? You also forget that the business owner IS a tax payer. You make it seem as though they're some external entity simply mooching off tax payer money while they contribute nothing. That they do something odious is inconsequential in the same way that we don't tell police and fire depts to stop responding to a racist redneck's problems simply because he verbally goes off on blacks and latinos and we as a society frown upon that.

You're young and idealistic. If Rand Paul (and you) gets his way, businesses would very quickly re-discriminate.

And my argument has been that if you want to change that you start by changing the attitudes not by having government interfere in private affairs. You are not entitled to people's private businesses. Moreover, we're living in different times with different demographics. If a store wanted to discriminate nowadays, especially in states with large ethnic minority populations, their business would suffer greatly.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, if you wanted to allow private enterprise to discriminate, you open the door to other nefarious business practices.

After all: why should government be forcing businesses not to sell liquor, or tobacco, to minors? Why should government be getting involved in safety regulations for employees? Why should government be forcing businesses not to put lead paint in their children's toys? Ad nauseum.

Libertarians are often good people at heart, but don't seem to realize that the marketplace is based on greed, and they'll literally kill you for money. (Dioxin in your backyard, anyone? It's tax-free.)

Back to the racial discrimination argument for a moment: Our good lady Lena Horne must be turning over in her grave....

Those are two different things.

One is a matter of who you let in your door; the other a matter of what you sell to those you let in the door.

Considering dioxin, I've already noted that any company which does business in more than one state could be a fair target for anti-discrimination efforts.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Those are two different things.

One is a matter of who you let in your door; the other a matter of what you sell to those you let in the door.

Considering dioxin, I've already noted that any company which does business in more than one state could be a fair target for anti-discrimination efforts.

Sure sounds like more government regulation to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

I love NPR.

Regarding the Civil Rights Act, Paul said he would've marched with Dr. King to get it passed, but voted against any and all clauses of the Act that would have prohibited businesses from discriminating.

The interviewer said he would've marched with King, but voted with Barry Goldwater.

It just tickled me.

It tickled me as being consistent and reasonable.

Personally I view such clauses of the Civil Rights Act as remedial legislation that should be temporary. I think we've reached the point where as a society we'd quickly avoid places which discriminated, making it, as Paul said, a poor business practice.

Uh huh. And how much regulation and government is going to be required to keep your little Utopian wonderland sorted-out? Are police going to be required to enforce discrimination? If a merchant decides to refuse service, is it then up to police officers to enforce the refusal? And what shall we call the agency set-up to regulate this little scheme? The office of legitimate discrimination? "You, Mr. Appliance store, you may discriminate all you want. But you, Ms. Pharmacist, you cannot discriminate! Oh, wait, there's a non-discriminating pharmacy within a thousand feet of your business, so, YES, you MAY discriminate!"

As soon as you make exceptions to the rules, Kuli, you open the doors for bigger government and greater costs to the public.

Edit: Not to mention, more lawyers and lawsuits to draw the boundaries.

That's why I said "could".

But since we already make such distinctions, the methodology is readily available -- for example, food stamps can buy somethings but not others.

 

[Kulindahr]

And my argument has been that if you want to change that you start by changing the attitudes not by having government interfere in private affairs. You are not entitled to people's private businesses. Moreover, we're living in different times with different demographics. If a store wanted to discriminate nowadays, especially in states with large ethnic minority populations, their business would suffer greatly.

Yep.

For starters, all liberals and a lot of other people would refuse to patronize such businesses. A big dent could be made if some philanthropist decided to start an organization which certified businesses as discrimination-free, and provided signs to display proudly -- like, "Proudly Open to the Whole Human Race". I wouldn't go to any business without one, and I don't know too many people who would.

And municipalities could require businesses to state in large, plain English (and any other significant local language(s)) who they discriminate against.

Sure sounds like more government regulation to me.

Only because you think in terms of government regulation. We don't need government regulation to have quality products; we don't need government regulation for this.

 

[poolerboy]

You could apply all of those things to the citizens themselves.

Whoops, let a word out.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Only because you think in terms of government regulation. We don't need government regulation to have quality products; we don't need government regulation for this.

We don't, huh? So what are the FDA and USDA for? The NTSA? How about the FAA? EPA?

Just imagine where we'd be, what we'd be eating, what sort of junk our cars and homes would be, how dangerous air travel would be. . .

You love to paint the "big-bad government" as an awful specter of an institution. I cringe at where we'd be without it. I fully believe that it must expand in keeping with our technologies, economy, population and aspirations. Human nature demands it. Anarchy is the only alternative.