Jacob Hornberger has written a great response to the liberal attacks on Rand Paul’s politically incorrect statements about Article II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

Writes Hornberger,

Suppose a certain white homeowner in a community publicly announces that he is holding a weekly TGIF cocktail party at his home every Friday night. He publicly invites everyone who lives within a one-mile radius of his home to his parties, but with a big exception. He says: Blacks and Jews are not invited and will not be permitted into his home.

How would libertarians respond? We would say that that man has every right in the world to take that position. We might criticize him, we might condemn him, we might ignore him, we might boycott his parties. But we would defend his right to discriminate against anyone he wants, as a matter of principle. After all, we would argue, it’s his home — his private property. To paraphrase Voltaire, we might not agree with how he uses his property, but we would defend his right to use it any way he wants. That’s what private ownership and a free society are all about.

How would liberals respond to that hypothetical? They would take the same position as libertarians! They would say that a man’s home is his castle and that he has the right to keep anyone he wants, even on racial grounds, from his home. They would defend the homeowner’s fundamental right to associate with anyone he wants, even if his choices are abhorrent and offensive to everyone else. They would not call on amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply it to private homeowners.

What? Could this actually be possible? Could liberals actually be defending the right of a bigot to be a bigot in his own home? Wouldn’t this make a liberal himself a bigot? After all, isn’t that what liberals claim about people who call for the right of discrimination in private businesses — that their support of such a right makes them a closet or overt bigot?

Liberals would respond, “No, we’re not bigots simply because we support the right of homeowners to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, the poor, and anyone else. We simply believe in the principle of private ownership of one’s home and we’re willing to defend that principle, even when homeowners make racist choices.”

Well, then why don’t liberals extend that reasoning to people who support the right of private business owners to discriminate? Why are they so quick to claim that they’re not bigots when they stand on principle when it comes to the right of homeowners to discriminate but so quick to label libertarians who call for the same principle to be applied to business owners as racists and bigots?

Like I say, two-faced and hypocritical.

But hypocritical as their heresy hunting may be, I’m guessing some liberals truly watched the square and mild-mannered eye surgeon argue for freedom of association, and saw a foaming-at-the-mouth hate-monger. In our hysterically politicized society, Americans typically assume that if an individual wants to legalize something, he or she must personally condone this good or practice.

The left is most guilty of this. They can't see how an argument opposing the use of government violence against people who use their justly-acquired property in deplorable, but nonviolent ways could be anything but a thinly-veiled attempt to re-segregate society and create all-white neighborhoods and diners. Social conservatives do this too; for example, suspecting all opponents of federal drug laws to be closet hipsters that want to "toke up" on pot.

All of this shows how far we’ve drifted from our founding vision. Our forefathers knew well that no  law, no matter how well-intended, could violate the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, and The Constitution. While these strict limitations may prevent the state from rectifying every personal defect of its citizenry,  liberty is still a principle worth upholding, regardless of the strain of ugliness that comes with a society of free people.

Rand Paul, by the way, has largely backed down from his initial defense of property rights and freedom of association. While he seems like a nice guy, and may well be the most libertarian U.S. Senator in history if elected, his conciliatory statements on this issue, as well as his increasingly "mainstream" rhetoric on  Iran sanctions, the EPA, and the minimum wage demonstrate how easy it is for politicians not named Ron Paul to compromise their principles under pressure.

If we don't keep this in mind, we'll end up every bit as soulless as the sycophantic Republicrat political organizations we mock.