Rand Paul

[Kulindahr]

Of course, doesn't the mafia have the right, if they control all the private carting companies, to charge extortionate rates to businesses?

How would you derive such a right?
They have a right to charge whatever they please. They do not have a right to coerce businesses into doing their bidding. They do not have a right to use coercion to stop competition. They do not have the right to use coercion to keep existing businesses from lowering their prices.

These sort of things are obvious when thought through. If you were actually thinking here, you wouldn't have asked such a silly -- though revealing -- question.

However, the NYC Sanitation Department garbage trucks do plow the streets when it snows.

That should be the task of whatever company runs the streets.

 

[Kulindahr]

I more readliy concur with the dissenting opinion:
"...every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle." ~ Justice Stevens
Admirable, IMHO.

Rehnquist's view completely overlooks the fact that discrimination supports a strata of class-hood. And it equates discrimination with "free speech" which it is not. A bigot is free to speak however he wants (short of advocating violence) but to PRACTICE bigotry is another matter. . . not speech.

Yet another case of "judicial activism."

This is actually a slightly different arena: the Boy Scouts and a business are similar only in that under the current structure of law they are both incorporated.

Scouts are a private organization, its activities limited to members only except by invitation.
That's not quite true of a business.

 

[palemale]

Government authority derives from the rights of individuals. If I as an individual cannot tell someone what he may do with his property, that authority does not magically appear because I take a group of people and call them "government".

Where did you come up with this proposition? The US Government derives its authority from the Constitution. If Congress and the state legislatures pass a constitutional amendment declaring all private property to be the property of the state and declaring the United States a socialist republic, guess what? There is no more private property and the US Government has the authority to assert ownership over all private property.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Many societies in history have been libertarian, and haven't descended into anarchy -- like, the United States of America pre-Lincoln.

<skeptical look> How so? Libertarian? I think not.

The gap between the filthy rich and the rest of us has exploded because of corporate socialism. It's almost always been government that concentrates wealth, not liberty.

I agree with the first sentence, I don't deny that at all. I disagree with the second.
Yes, corporatism has caused great harm to our middle and poor classes. You would have it do even more-so. I've seen posts where you advocated less government, allowing corporations to take the reigns over regulation and infrastructure. That's where I believe they would seize the opportunity to exponentially expand their influence and wealth, while simultaneously eliminating the costs associated with poverty. . . effectively casting them out to fend for themselves. If you think we middle class folks have it rough now, wait until your Utopian Libertarian society turns you into a slave to your corporate masters.

It's corporatism that concentrates wealth, not government, as you assert.

That's your imagination talking. And that's only prejudice.

If it results in slavery, it isn't libertarian.

Okay, so the appliance store is free to discriminate, yet the pharmacy isn't. There's a regulation. Wait a minute, there's only one appliance store in the county. . . so the customer is forced to drive three counties away to find a new refrigerator because the old one gave out and everything is spoiling. Okay, wait, in that case it's a vital business and the can't discriminate. There's a new regulation. Okay, so I'm passing through your town, I need food for my (for the sake of argument) diabetic condition. There are only two restaurants in town. . . I find one, but they don't serve gay families. I collapse into a diabetic coma on the way to the other. Well, now we need to make rules for special cases, right? More complexity, more government. Oh, and then there are the enforcement officials to make sure the rights of the discriminators are being upheld! After all, we can't have any unruly ethnic folks or fags stirring up trouble in our fine, upstanding establishments! More complexity, more government.

Oh, and then we need the lawyers to argue all these cases and help establish all the rules and regulations. . .

Discrimination is NOT a right. Equal treatment IS.

 

[Kulindahr]

Where did you come up with this proposition? The US Government derives its authority from the Constitution. If Congress and the state legislatures pass a constitutional amendment declaring all private property to be the property of the state and declaring the United States a socialist republic, guess what? There is no more private property and the US Government has the authority to assert ownership over all private property.

No, that would be an usurpation of authority.

Government does not exist as its own entity -- any time it acts as though it does, it has become a batch of thugs. That government somehow has its own authority and rights is the statist lie that has upheld every authoritarian regime in history. Government is something people put together in order to protect their rights -- that's why there can even be a U.S. Constitution. It's also why there is a right to insurrection, affirmed by SCOTUS, and a Second Amendment; the two go together.

What you describe would be theft on a massive scale, because the authority to take something that belongs to another doesn't exist on an individual level, so no authority to do so on a macro level does not exist. Authority to defend private property, thrown away by the government, would revert to the people, who would then be perfectly legitimate in shooting any government agents who came to enforce such an act of authoritarianism.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

This is actually a slightly different arena: the Boy Scouts and a business are similar only in that under the current structure of law they are both incorporated.

Scouts are a private organization, its activities limited to members only except by invitation.
That's not quite true of a business.

Your side opened this vein of argument.

 

[Kulindahr]

<skeptical look> How so? Libertarian? I think not.

Of course it was. Government was small and stayed out of the way. Private property was private property, building roads wasn't limited to the government, etc.

I agree with the first sentence, I don't deny that at all. I disagree with the second.
Yes, corporatism has caused great harm to our middle and poor classes. You would have it do even more-so. I've seen posts where you advocated less government, allowing corporations to take the reigns over regulation and infrastructure. That's where I believe they would seize the opportunity to exponentially expand their influence and wealth, while simultaneously eliminating the costs associated with poverty. . . effectively casting them out to fend for themselves. If you think we middle class folks have it rough now, wait until your Utopian Libertarian society turns you into a slave to your corporate masters.

It's corporatism that concentrates wealth, not government, as you assert.

Underwriters Laboratories.

Discrimination is NOT a right. Equal treatment IS.

I own myself. You're maintaining that in some cases, I don't.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your side opened this vein of argument.

I didn't know I had a "side" -- I thought I was a free citizen.

 

[JB3]

Where did you come up with this proposition? The US Government derives its authority from the Constitution. If Congress and the state legislatures pass a constitutional amendment declaring all private property to be the property of the state and declaring the United States a socialist republic, guess what? There is no more private property and the US Government has the authority to assert ownership over all private property.

Bullhockey. The government derives its authority from the people. The people grant it that authority THROUGH the constitution, and have the right to disband and overthrow it when they feel it has overstepped its bounds. That is a basic premise of our nation; I'm surprised you don't know it.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

Government can't grant rights; rights either exist, or they don't.

Then, where do we set the fulcrum to weigh one right against another? Who's "right" takes precedent? The discriminator, or the discriminated? Somebody has to decide.

If there's a "right to discriminate", it doesn't have to be enforced; you just let people do as they please. And if there is a right to discriminate, it is protected in the Constitution: the Constitution protects all rights, not just those enumerated.

Herein, you propose anarchy. Say, you, as a merchant, decide to discriminate against all Hispanics. An Hispanic man comes into your store and wants to buy something. You say no. You both pull out your guns and start blasting away. THAT'S what you propose.

And again the emotional appeal against anarchy -- which does not follow, any more than the cries of some in Europe's aristocracy that without a class of nobles America would collapse into anarchy, or of liberals that if any law-abiding citizen who wished could carry a concealed weapon, things would collapse into anarchy.

Continuing the scenario above: Whose rights (the merchant, to discriminate, or the customer, to equal protection under the law) prevail? Law enforcement and a judicial system are required to settle this. And they'll require a legislature to design the statutes. And lawyers to argue the cases. . . Follow? Now, unless you say that "business is always right" there's a need for governmental intervention. Even then, somebody has to execute the rules on the behalf of the business. . . unless they're free to act as enforcement, judge and jury. Now you're talking about a slave state.

 

[LonelyInVenice]

I didn't know I had a "side" -- I thought I was a free citizen.

Your cheerleader, Poolerboy:

It's a violation of the First Amendment. To quote Chief Justice William Rehnquist, "While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government." --Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.

 

[SoulSearcher]

If I want to open a bookstore for people with blue eyes and no one else, that should be my business.

Then I think you're living in the perfect state for that! Sure you're not possessed by the spirit of a dead German somewhere. And talking of spirit, where is the Holy Spirit when I need her to speak through you on topics like this?

 

[SoulSearcher]

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".

Yeah, I'm sure all the white males in his neck of the woods would be protesting discrimination of the sort he's getting wet dreams about....Bubba never changes....his Satanic head is rearing itself in every corner of the country where bigots allow it to.

 

[SoulSearcher]

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.

Not really, like someone said above, bigotry and hatred gets people elected in some parts of the country. Racist businesses would probably more than double their income in some states by being racist.

And there is no "as a society", I'm in LA, we are not the same society as some town in Alabama, or Mississippi or even Arizona.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Two things appear to me to be true on this issue.

One: banning discrimination in private businesses open to the public helped break down the black-white barrier in a substantial way. It may (I'd argue probably would) have happened eventually anyway, but it would undoubtedly have taken a hell of a lot longer. Generations, likely.

Two: if this part of the civil rights act were to be repealed today then there aren't many businesses that could get away with denying blacks service. Some could, but most places would be boycotted out of business for it. The moral zeitgeist has shifted, and the government's actions played a large role in that.

Based off those two statements, I'd have to argue in favor of the ban on discrimination even for private businesses. Can't let private corporations have too much power simply because they're private. As long as they're open to the public, they should be open to all of the public that desires and pays for whatever service/goods the business provides/has.

The government has an obligation to ensure the rights of all its citizens. There are more freedoms than simply freedom from the government. Kulindahr seems to have an entirely negative view of rights. Do you not believe in positive rights?

 

[TickTockMan]

Bullhockey. The government derives its authority from the people. The people grant it that authority THROUGH the constitution, and have the right to disband and overthrow it when they feel it has overstepped its bounds. That is a basic premise of our nation; I'm surprised you don't know it.

So at what point is one a terrorist instead of a patriot? Does it take a 51% of popular opinion? After all it all comes down to beliefs and opinion.

 

[NotThatCreative]

Bullhockey. The government derives its authority from the people. The people grant it that authority THROUGH the constitution, and have the right to disband and overthrow it when they feel it has overstepped its bounds. That is a basic premise of our nation; I'm surprised you don't know it.

The problem with your statement here is the part where I added emphasis. In this country, we do not have that right. States do not have the right to secede and people do not have the right to overthrow the government. We thought we did, but after the War for Confederate Independence that idea was pretty well stomped on. Secession and revolution aren't rights in the USA.

The government does derive its power from the people through the Constitution though, you were right about that.

 

[Pangelboy]

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..

I think it quite the opposite. He tried to steer the discussion away from the reality of his positions by bringing up Dr. King. The same man who wrote, "An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere."

I think it's illogical to discard certain parts of legislation that have brought us to this point in society. The Free Market has already demonstrated that discriminatory policies can be beneficial. Many people in the South (and the North) salivate at the prospect of reviving legal discrimination. Racism will rear it's ugly head if legitimized, which repealing the Title II clause of the CRA would do.

In the end, I don't want to have to rely on Rand Paul to protest businesses that discriminate against me because of the color of my skin.

 

[bike10]

Wonder if he has ever read the Constitution? Or better yet what amendments does he seek to repeal?

 

[MystikWizard]

Well, I absolutely love his father, but Rand seems to be a bit of a head case and more in line with the train of thought of the current fringe Tea Baggers.