Rand Paul had an interesting column in a local Kentucky newspaper over the weekend addressing his post-primary comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
I am unlike many folks who run for office. I am an idealist. When I read history I side with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas who fought for 30 years to end slavery and to integrate public transportation in the free North in the 1840s. I see our failure to end slavery for decade after decade as a failure of weak-kneed politicians.
I cheer the abolitionist Lysander Spooner, who argued that slavery was unconstitutional 20 years before the Civil War. I cheer Lerone Bennet when he argues that the right of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution should have derailed slavery long before the Civil War.
Only when the brave idealists, the abolitionists, finally provoked the weak-kneed politicians into action, did the emancipation proclamation come about. Our body politic has enough pragmatists, we need a few idealists.
Segregation ended only after a great and momentous uprising by idealists like Martin Luther King Jr., who provoked weak-kneed politicians to action.
In 2010, there are battles that need to be fought, and they have nothing to do with race or discrimination, but rather the rights of people to be free from a nanny state.
For example, I am opposed to the government telling restaurant owners that they cannot allow smoking in their establishments. I believe we as consumers can choose whether to patronize a smoke-filled restaurant or do business with a smoke-free option.
Think about it – this overreach is now extending to mandates about fat and calorie counts in menus. Do we really need the government managing all of these decisions for us?
My overriding principle is this: I believe in the natural right of all individuals to have their God-given liberty protected. And that’s why I believe the Civil Rights Act was necessary, and that I would have voted for it.
That’s the part that the media doesn’t get, I think. Its so rare for an American politician to actually have principles that they base their political opinions on that they can’t understand it when they meet one who does.
I actually do think the media gets his position, which seems to be that the Government doesn’t have the right of telling privately owned businesses that they can not choose to not serve or hire persons based on things like race or disabilities.
In his article he uses this example… “For example, should a small business in a two-story building have to put in a costly elevator, even if it threatens their economic viability? Wouldn’t it be better to allow that business to give a handicapped employee a ground floor office? We need more businesses and jobs, not fewer.”
With out laws that prevent that business from making it’s hiring decisions based on things like a person’s disability, then why on earth would the business hire the person in the first place, even if they are the most qualified to do the job?
In one interview he did it seemed like Rand was trying to rationalize not having the government prevent discrimination in private businesses becuase he believes that market values would weed out those who discriminate. The problem with that is that it assumes that rational business related decisions will eventually trump a person’s irrational fear (which I believe is the root of discrimination) when in practice that rarely happens.
you know he’s not going to get elected. which is a damn shame on the people of kentucky who are cursed. conway is just too pretty boy floyd. he’s the brad pitt of kentucky politics. he is also about as real as a three dollar bill. if enough cynics voted conway would stand no chance. unfortunately we’re the dumbest cognitively impaired shitheads of any country. he’s also promising them shit beyond the magical rainbow of reality. he’ll break their po’ kentucky hearts when he can’t deliver.
Yah, I also think the media gets it very well. It’s just that they feel that government SHOULD be into every aspect of our lives, right down to how many calories we’re allowed to eat, therefore they deliberately go after trivial nonsense which can make Paul look bad.
While I disagree with smoking bans and I’m against any sort of implementation of laws regarding fast food caloric intake, I do believe that there is a legitimate role for government in private enterprise when it comes to dealing with characteristics of a person such as race, disability, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
quote: “With out laws that prevent that business from making it’s hiring decisions based on things like a person’s disability, then why on earth would the business hire the person in the first place, even if they are the most qualified to do the job?”
If they are the most qualified, then they will in fact be hired because it is within the best interest of the business to do so.
The question is, when the disabled person isn’t hired within a field of candidates, how does the government determine that they were in fact ‘the best qualified candidate’ when this is such a subjective task? How is the government supposed to enforce this kind of law? It doesn’t make any sense.
Vast do you defend freedom of speech? Do you defend hate speech? IF you do then you have to defend freedom of association also. Most Americans see that to tolerate hate speech is a responcibility of living in a free society. I am sure they will also agree the same applies to freedom of association.
“If they are the most qualified, then they will in fact be hired because it is within the best interest of the business to do so.”
While that’s a nice theory, ensuring it’s put into practice is an all together different matter. An employer who does not like disabled people could very easily choose not to higher the disabled person even if they are the most qualified. Without the law there is no incentive to do otherwise other than the applicant’s qualifications which can be easily trumped by the employer’s irrational dislike for the disabled. It’s human nature to discriminate.
“Vast do you defend freedom of speech? Do you defend hate speech? IF you do then you have to defend freedom of association also. ”
Yes I do support the freedom someone has to be an idiot and use hate speech. I also support a persons right to freedom of association, where I draw the line though is in private enterprise. I don’t believe that a restaurant owner should have the right to deny service to African-Americans for example. And no I don’t believe that the principles of the free market would weed out those that do.
For example. You have a town with 100 families in it, one of which is African-American. There is absolutely no financial disincentive with in that town to prevent every business in it from denying service to that 1 family without the intervention of the Civil Rights Act. So, what is that one family supposed to do? Sure they could move, but isn’t that a violation of that families civil rights?
vast, fuck up. seriously. i read the first paragraph and i was dozing. don’t bore the tits off of us with hypotheticals and innuendos. you made your point and then you move on. nobody knows you from a website to know if you’re credible or just schmoozing.
you always get that one guy that has to be too philosophical in a comment thread.
I’m sorry if ensuring that people aren’t discriminated against is boring to you.