Oct 14, 2010 at 8:30 AM
Congressman Ron Paul holds his own against MSNBC attack dog Lawrence O'Donnell on The Last Word.
Posted in:
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
What a train wreck. There is no such thing as a prefessional journalist anymore. Maybe there never was. At least ole RP gave him whatfor.
Ron Paul represents himself well here.
But is he saying that Jim Crow laws wouldn't (couldn't?) have existed purely in terms of private property? If anything, that would seem to be the easiest way to have those kinds of rules. And instead of black/white water fountains on public property, it'd be fountains shared arbitrarily by the well-to-do (IOW, probably not blacks).
You answered your own question when you used the word "rules." What someone wants to do with their private property they can because they solely, or through contract, collectively own it. Therefore if they want to spend the money on seperate bathrooms, water fountains, train cars, etc. they can. Ones "rules" do not spred past the influence of their property, where as "laws" have sweeping effects over everyone.
Jim Crow laws mandated seperation of the races in the public sphere i.e. state/federal buildings, parks, public transportation, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that private businesses were involved in these mandates.
When property is collectively owned by the state it is subject to the will of the people, or more correctly the people in charge. The majority may be incredibly hateful, especially when they can deny voting to those who are the target of their hate. It doesn't even have to come down to a democratic vote, if the representatives are acting in what they feel is the best interest of the constituents.
When property is private, the segregation is at the will of the owner, who at least we have a 50/50 chance of them being racist. Most entrepenures would know that they don't want to lose the buisness of anyone, so they would most likely not want to segregate, but do what you will, you own it. You can choose to patronize them, where as things like public offices (i.e. courts, dmv, etc.) you are forced to patronize.
If the majority of the population discriminates along ethnic lines, that means the majority of businesses as well. But the discrimination need not be absolute. This allows profit from the discriminated group (rent, food, clothes) while maintaining control over what that group can acquire (land, guns, competing business, etc.). And those businesses can control their very private water fountains with results essentially the same as a law governing public property (which now no longer exists).
I think that sufficiently simulates Jim Crow South. And if the dominant group wishes to exercise even more control over the discriminated while adhering to private property rights, the majority can form a local trade bloc (like The Klan, whose power btw fluctuated according to profits) and craft discriminatory membership rules. Gobble up the property, and you can essentially do what you want with the whole town. It might be a little slower than running people off with violence, but it works, and you can always put those guns and nooses to good use on trespassers of roads that in other systems would be public property.
You could argue that this is economic madness in the long term, but racism doesn't strike me as an attitude easily overcome by such considerations.
I see your point. Yes - allowing private institutions to practice levels of segregation would, essentially, be the same as the government continuing to practice Jim Crow. However, the term private, with respect to property or business, is indeed -- like the term liberty -- absolute; when the government has a say in how you conduct your business, or control your property, then that business or property is no longer private, but instead, public; a notion that is as un-Constitutional as Jim Crow laws themselves.
I share your disdain for the thought of businesses practicing any type of segregation, whether it be racial, religious, or whatever; but, I fear, even more so, a world where a people are subject to the prejudices of those within their government, and that is exactly what Dr. Paul is arguing.
"However, the term private, with respect to property or business, is indeed -- like the term liberty -- absolute..."
Liberty isn't absolute. There are numerous shades of gray. But it is easier to think of the world in absolutes, black and white, simple good and bad vs relative values.
"...when the government has a say in how you conduct your business, or control your property, then that business or property is no longer private, but instead, public; a notion that is as un-Constitutional as Jim Crow laws themselves."
Apparently not, even if you interpret this conservatively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause
"Liberty isn't absolute. There are numerous shades of gray. But it is easier to think of the world in absolutes, black and white, simple good and bad vs relative values."
Wrong. Liberty, even by definition, is considered to be absolute. Liberty, in short, is nothing more than the freedom to think or act without the constraints of some external coercion. You cannot, in one instance, say that you have liberty, when in another, be constrained by what the government, or any other entity, would qualify as acceptable thought or action. You either have liberty, or you do not. It is indeed, as you put it, black and white. Private property, like liberty, does not exist when an entity, other than the owner, dictates how that property, or business, is to be managed. So when the government gets involved in the management of a business, that business is no longer private. Further, consider that when the government assumes the power to tell a business who they MUST serve, the government, simultaneously, assumes the power to tell a business who they MUST NOT serve. (I hate making the rudimentary argument of a slippery slope, but it's hard not to when it's starring you in the face)
"Apparently not, even if you interpret this conservatively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause"
As you know, through our previous conversations, my perspective is that of the Founders, and I share their understanding of the powers that were delegated to the Federal government. The Commerce clause was never meant to regulate intrastate commerce (business conducted within state lines), but instead, it was meant to regulate interstate commerce (business conducted across state lines). Of course, like most of the Constitution, the verbiage within the Commerce clause has been twisted to grant the Federal government yet another power that was never intended to exist.
"You either have liberty, or you do not. It is indeed, as you put it, black and white."
Do you consider yourself a person without liberty? Would you be equally without liberty in North Korea? Surely you don't believe this.
Question: How many steps does it take to make a slippery slope? (You seem to think there are zero between liberty and non-liberty). ;)
On the commerce clause, I took into account your conservative POV. Whether across or within state lines, it's government controlling your business. Right? So I think you are missing my point.
"Do you consider yourself a person without liberty? Would you be equally without liberty in North Korea? Surely you don't believe this."
Of course not. I think you're over generalizing my point about liberty being an absolute term, or perhaps I didn't explain myself thoroughly enough. When a liberty, that would otherwise be protected by the Constitution, such as the freedom to speak our mind, is limited, then that liberty has, essentially, been removed. It is no longer the freedom to speak our mind, and is now what we're allowed to say. We still enjoy those other liberties we have left, so a complete, or absolute, loss of liberty, in its entirety, has not necessarily occurred. My point, which was either missed, or not explained well enough, is that we cannot in one instance say that we enjoy the liberty to speak our mind, when in another instance allow an entity to qualify what we're allowed to say. We either have the liberty to speak our mind, or we don't. The same is true for private property. Property is either private, or it is not. When the government has a say in how a private business or property is to be managed, then, because it is subject to the whims or prejudices of a public entity, it is no longer private, but instead, public.
"Question: How many steps does it take to make a slippery slope? (You seem to think there are zero between liberty and non-liberty). ;)"
Answer: When you consider what is needed to be done to remove one's liberties, or rights, the steps are, or can be, rather short. How many steps did it take for the President to gain the power to assassinate an American citizen if he or she is believed to be a terrorist? =/
"On the commerce clause, I took into account your conservative POV. Whether across or within state lines, it's government controlling your business. Right? So I think you are missing my point."
Perhaps there's a debate to be had on the merits of allowing the Federal government to have any involvement, even with interstate commerce.(?) My point though, is that INTRAstate commerce was meant to be an INTRAstate issue, not a Federal one.
OK. Let's clear the misunderstandings.
Anti-discrimination laws tell you how to run certain aspects of your business. Is your business now public or private? If public, is it as public as a communist collective?
Freedom of speech is limited in various ways in the USA. Has your liberty to speak your mind been removed? If yes, is it as removed as it would be in China or Iran?
If white has a little black in it, is it white or black? If black has a little white in it, is it black or white? Please justify your choice.
I would respond to your suggestions as yes they are as limited as in those countries in principle but not in practice. Government control is ever growing, as the old saying goes, you give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Labeling and increasing consumer knowledge was the justification of the USDA and FDA, now these organizations are the gatekeepers to what can and cannot be on the food market.The FCC was created to only license specific frequencies for broadcast, they now can limit speech and enforce copyright law.
The principle that government should have any involvement in the market will eventually lead to the government controlling the market. While you might say we are "more free" than Iran or China, history shows that it is only a matter of time before the state will attempt to control everything. We see this now with "net neutrality," the recent suplements act, and the calls from some to nationalize the mortgage market following "foreclosuregate." Its the slippery slope theory that has yet to be proven wrong when it comes to state control.
Practice always trumps principle. Your principles seem to require a stateless society. IMO that's the short road to a long, violent tyranny, a very bad practice indeed.
So you all agree then that mere property rights would not have been sufficient to reform the Jim Crow South and that Mr. Paul was off his rocker there. It's good to know we can agree about something. :)
This is the continuous arguement brought up by those who equate "anarchy" with "chaos." I believe in a voluntary society, not a social contract society. In that society people would be free to express their natural rights as long as they do not cause harm, force, or fraud on others.
Obviously I don't have time nor the energy to explain it all, and I'm far from the person who should be trying to. I'm no Stephan Molyneux and have a huge reading list that I've tried to tackle.
I would agree that you are off your rocker if you think that legislation can cure racism. Are the shop owners who segregated in the 60's under Jim Crow no longer racist because they have to now serve minorities? Has the KKK or Neo-Nazi movement been eradicated because they are targeted by the FBI in stead of being the FBI now?
Would property rights have solved the problem? No, but its a problem that can't be solved because it is a problem created by ideas. Ideas are stronger than violence, law, and other types of coercion and the idea that it can be solved is a utopian fantasy.
Ron Paul is getting old =(
Also, really? Liberal government ended segregation? Last time I checked it was Republicans that introduced and voted for Civil Rights legislation. Democrats have opposed such legislation over 95% of the time. It was the Democrats incahoots with the KKK that helped get those Jim Crow laws passed to begin with. What a joke and distortion of history.
Shaun - I think because of the laws (Jim Crow or otherwise) that it was impossible for a competing business owner to open up his lunch counters to everyone. There were protectionist measures that stopped someone from getting the target market that wasn't being served the way they felt they should be. And I don't think the local police would have protected that business from the blowback.
Thank god the government came in and forced business owners to see how everyone benefits from trade. We know that everyone will get the point as long as force is involved. I'm sure it had nothing to do with "force businesses to trade with them down there so the blacks stop coming up North."
That is an interesting point about stopping black migration to the north. I would have never thought of that. I wonder if there is any evidence in research or public records to support your hypothesis?
the only 'evidence' I know of - is MLK said he had to go to the South because the North (where Malcolm was) was just too under the radar - the racism that is. It was hard to fight in that civil disobedient way. I don't know if any politicians were asked to vote in certain ways or if there are any archival letters or anything. That'd be where I would go to research.
that's sort of what its like when I've been to Detroit or talked to people from there.