Rand Paul was recently criticized for not agreeing with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul justifiably argued that the distinction between public and private institutions was blurred in the bill.
The bill does take away rights from private business owners. All businesses should have the same right to discriminate against whomever they may wish, just as those very same groups discriminated against should have the free and equal right to boycott the hell out of those very same businesses that discriminated against them.
If there was no law forcing all business owners to serve all customers, minorities and other groups of people who may be discriminated against would know which businesses were racist or had racist people working in them, and would know which businesses to boycott. Non-racist white people would follow and help boycott those very same businesses, which will lead to a lot of potential revenues being lost.
This is how noncriminal racism should be filtered out of society, not by government legislation. Racism can only end when people of all races can be open minded enough to accept each other for who they are and their individual attributes, instead of discriminating against each other over minor differences in their physical attributes.
This was a question of private property rights -- not of race. If this part of the Civil Rights Act was repealed, black business owners would have the same right to discriminate against white patrons and vice versa. This issue isn’t race; it is fair and equal rights to all private property owners, black and white alike. A black business owner should have the same free and equal right not to do business with a white man who walks onto their property wearing a confederate flag on their hat or t-shirt.
Since a pure libertarian system is unlikely to exist in the USA in the near future, maybe YAL should push for a fix within the framework of the Constitution.
Removing the Civil Rights Act wouldn't establish your right to discriminate. It would remove a legal obstacle to such action. You would simply enjoy increased freedom to discriminate.
Although citizens currently have a general right to their property, they do not and never will have absolute rights to do whatever they can imagine with their property. We are all limited in many ways that prevent us from harming one another. To have an enumerated, formal right to discriminate along the lines of race, religion, etc., maybe you guys should start a grassroots movement for a new Constitutional Ammendment.
Ammendment XXVIII: "The right of private citizens of the United States to discriminate against fellow citizens shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State."
I don't follow the logic of this comment. Do you really think the rights of people are enumerated or should be enumerated? It seems silly to me even if it may protect one or two more negative rights. Negative rights are too vast to enumerate. We haven't discovered what we are able to or capable of doing We shouldn't start pretending that it is possible or logical to enumerate the scope of activities that comes with negative freedom (rights). Your particular amendment to enumerate this particular negative right is definitely not the most strategic negative right to enumerate. Obviously you're not on board with this outlandish suggestion which is made obvious when you say"you guys" when talking about what "us guys" should do.
In any case, the author's point was that it is much easier to discover and punish racism if the information is easy to access in a free market setting. This is a point I've been thinking about a lot lately since the Rand Paul discussion on Maddow. We don't want to encourage discrimination or even be associated with it, but rather, let free markets punish people for the bad behavior. Many libertarians think of racism as a remnant of apartheid here in the U.S. and NOT a result of racism manifest in the market.
My point was tongue in cheek, and it sounds like you got it. ;)
Dan John wrote: "All businesses should have the same free and right to discriminate against whomever they may wish..." Though I'm not sure what a "free and right" is ;), it sounds like a request for a formal right, not simply an ignored activity, i.e. a freedom.
But then he says it's really only a property issue. "This was a question of private property rights -- not of race." The truth is it's about both, thus the controversy.
As for the practical argument, if you feel that boycotts are a more effective solution to racism, OK. I've known racist people, and using weak peer or financial pressure doesn't strike me as an effective way to change that sort of irrational mindset. And I don't think it would have been the least bit effective in the 60's. But, then again, we aren't in the 60's anymore. Contemporary sentiments might lift a boycott to the level of community condemnation.
Why are any rights enumerated in the Constitution? Maybe because at some point they were in jeopardy...?
I am having problems with equal rights. What my county did to us is we moved in a neighborhood that was primarily residential and limited commercial. I moved here 25 years ago. Even though my zoning is what it is the county will not enforce their code and do everything to hurt us even trying to put us out of business. My neighborhood even though it is totally against zoning now is a industrial park built around us. We fought to stop this for 22 years and every time a business moves out more industrial moves in and the county will not enforce any codes. It is loud rude and disturbing. This county has also drained are storm water to us and then it goes no place else. Sometimes our yard is 3 ft. under water. Can anyone tell me what to do?
Post new comment