Rand Paul

[maxiep]

I think the largest issue missing is that the civil rights act got twisted and became a monster legislation that has sprouted many ugly heads due to it being coercion in nature. The majority of people in the civil rights movement fought to repeal laws compelling segregation, the civil rights act on the other had prohibited segregation.

It all boils down to what rights are, I strongly believe I have a right to my life, liberty, and property. I believe I can't be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from. All other aspects of life I have no right to, I do not have a right to food, water, shelter or any object because those things are all a measurement of wealth.

The person serving food is doing so at his own economic and capital risk, since it is his property he has a right to protect it and serve whoever he feels like bigoted, or not. The people that are denied service have no right whatsoever because going into that buisness was a completely voluntary action. I absolutely believe not serving someone based on their color is wrong, but I believe an individuals rights(even a bad person) are far more important than a person being denied a product.

Another reason why I also disagree with the civil rights act, is because it only protects consumers. The same bigoted person can chose not to patronize a buisness because it is ran by a person of color. Should we pass a laws similar to civil rights act to prohibit people from not being consumers?

Repped.

 

[maxiep]

In summation: the Civil Rights laws weren't perfect, so they were worthless. Sorry if I don't find that even slightly persuasive.

BTW Denny, your "slippery slope" argument works both ways. If folks like the Pauls ran things, we wouldn't be debating desegregation - we would still be debating slavery. Their attitude that you are only acting on principle when you fail to act just doesn't cut it in real life.

Slavery was on its way out before the Civil War. Attitudes change, and change can happen without the heavy hand of government.

 

[JungleBoy]

In summation: the Civil Rights laws weren't perfect, so they were worthless. Sorry if I don't find that even slightly persuasive.

BTW Denny, your "slippery slope" argument works both ways. If folks like the Pauls ran things, we wouldn't be debating desegregation - we would still be debating slavery. Their attitude that you are only acting on principle when you fail to act just doesn't cut it in real life.

That is Rands point 9 10ths of the law is good, but 1 part is not. It would have been less costly to change the bill before it passed than infringe upon peoples private property rights. Sorry for Rand trying to take the oath of office seriously, and uphold the Constitution.

Also if people like the Pauls ran the country slavery would have ended much sooner in this country, and we would have not fought a needless costly civil war.

 

[barfo]

http://american.com/archive/2010/may/extremism-in-the-defense-of-rand-paul-is-no-vice

I agree with this author. It is a good thing for the country that Rand Paul is running and expressing his views (it would be even better if he was more upfront and less weaselly about his views). I think it would be a bad thing for the country if he got elected to anything higher than dogcatcher, but I think it is great we have the opportunity to discuss his peculiar worldview.

Actually, I guess he'd be a disaster as dogcatcher too. He'd insist that all dogs must be free and not fenced in or tied up or kept on a leash.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Slavery was on its way out before the Civil War. Attitudes change, and change can happen without the heavy hand of government.

Sometimes people aren't willing to wait around for things to change by themselves. Slavery might have been "on the way out", but how long before it was completely gone in the absence of legal (and military) intervention? Another 50 or 100 years? I guess that's ok, if you aren't a slave?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

I noticed how what he said was twisted for political gain by his opposition.

I happen to support the intent of the legislation (as Paul said). However, I am not sure that the legislation was ultimately required to achieve its results. If you know anything about history, about black history, then you might know about Black Wall Street. If you don't, or for the benefit of others who don't:

Black Wall Street is the name of one of the most affluent black communities in america, long before the modern civil rights movement was formed. The level of success of numerous black people in that community was exceptional - numerous millionaires, some of the best doctors in the nation. Being a millionaire might not seem like a big deal, but this was back in ~1910-1920 when a dollar was worth a lot more.

The gist of the story is that a bunch of white people, the KKK, and government officials (like the local sheriff) burned the neighborhood to the ground during what's conveniently called a "race riot" by some. Though certainly racist, I would call it the decimation of thriving black enterprise, intimidation of the highest order (to keep them in their place), and a real blow to black people seeking to live the american dream.

This is not anecdotal evidence that govt. intervention in the name of "civil rights" is not a requirement. There were black teachers, doctors, mayors, senators, etc., after the civil war. In fact, the evidence repeatedly suggests that the role of govt. is to protect citizens and persons and their property against physical aggression, and that is where govt. continually fails. It wasn't the lack of civil rights legislation that failed in Tulsa, it was the govt. not using whatever police or military force to protect that neighborhood and the people there.

Te party that does not call itself the Party of Lincoln, for 100 years enacted Jim Crow laws and otherwise fostered violence against our brothers. Govt. has never been the solution, it's been the problem.

The failure of govt. to perform its primary duty (to protect and defend) is the sorry truth. While the northeast liberal crowd looks down its nose at people of the South to this day, anyone with a sense of history knows that they opposed the civil war, and they seem oblivious to the fact that terrible racist activity went on in places like California, Chicago, Detroit, and Cincinnati (to name a few). I'm talking about race riots and lynchings and other horrible things that took place all along. Or laws against shining shoes on public street corners, that are clearly targeted at you know who.

Jackie Robinson wasn't the first black MLB player because of govt. fiat. It was his own courage, and less well promoted the courage of a white man named Branch Rickey, that began the integration of the game. Just seeing black men excel at the game for a couple of decades led people to accept and then embrace integration.

All this leads back to Rand and to your misreading of what Jon Kyl said. It is a philosophical question about the proper role of government. I, like Rand, don't believe that govt. should reach out with its too broad powers to legislate behavior. It should protect the the people within our borders and their property, and let the Robinsons and Rickeys sort out the social issues.

All this makes a solid case FOR Federal Government overseeing state and local governments, which as you point out are often racist and illegal in their actions.

Without Bobby Kennedy sending Federal troops to stop southern "local law officers" and their fellow Klan members from attacking and lynching blacks back in the sixties, the Civil Rights movement would have never amounted to anything but a pipedream.

Further, your premise that free enterprise created Black Wall Street ignores the fact that local racists unrestrained by Federal officers destroyed it. It is this very problem with local and state government being so corrupt and often acting illegally and against it's own people that has caused the Federal Government to reluctantly take a more active role in protecting citizens on a local level when their local government does not. BTW, Black Wall Street was inherently racist in all it's functions.

For more on BWS: http://www.blackwallstreet.freeservers.com/The Story.htm

Seems racist and totally inaccurate for you to imply only black people shine shoes.

I think most people misread the Jackie Robinson result. Back when American professional athletes were all white, they were viewed as heroes and respected whether they deserved it or not.

Now that sports are integrated, athletes are viewed more like pets, or possessions, or "boy"s, and criticized for each and every personal fault they show.

Progress? Somehow I don't think so.

 

[MARIS61]

Slavery was on its way out before the Civil War. Attitudes change, and change can happen without the heavy hand of government.

Slavery was not "on it's way out", but no matter as the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves by any stretch of the imagination.

It was fought to prevent the secession of the south from the union.

As for attitudes changing, I guess you don't travel the south very much.

 

[MARIS61]

Incidentally, this was NOT Rand Paul's point. His point, which I find much more interesting, is that if the government can mandate that a private enterprise must accept black people, it might decide--or even be forced by the second amendment--to mandate that it must accept people wielding firearms.

Should a bar owner be required by federal law to serve a customer openly carrying a sidearm? That's a trickier one, IMO. Rand Paul had an interesting point there. It's kind of a shame he wasn't very good at communicating it.

2nd Amendment already guarantees the right to bear arms, so it's a moot point. If a restaurant here in Beautiful Central Oregon posted a "NO FIREARMS" sign at the door, they'd be broke in a month.

 

[barfo]

Also if people like the Pauls ran the country slavery would have ended much sooner in this country, and we would have not fought a needless costly civil war.

Please explain how. Denny claims the founding fathers as libertarians, and we know that some of them were slave owners. But be that as it may, how would the Pauls have ended slavery, had they been transported back in time to the early 1800s? How would their philosophy of everyone has a right to do whatever they want with their own property have ended slavery, given that slaves were in fact considered property at the time?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

In summation: the Civil Rights laws weren't perfect, so they were worthless. Sorry if I don't find that even slightly persuasive.

BTW Denny, your "slippery slope" argument works both ways. If folks like the Pauls ran things, we wouldn't be debating desegregation - we would still be debating slavery. Their attitude that you are only acting on principle when you fail to act just doesn't cut it in real life.

Your summation is a strawman. Paul said that if he weren't able to persuade people to modify the civil rights act, he'd have supported it.

Other posts that I'll respond to will address your second point.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sometimes people aren't willing to wait around for things to change by themselves. Slavery might have been "on the way out", but how long before it was completely gone in the absence of legal (and military) intervention? Another 50 or 100 years? I guess that's ok, if you aren't a slave?

barfo

Slavery ended, but what was put in its place was only slightly better (Jim Crow, segregation, etc.).

 

[Denny Crane]

All this makes a solid case FOR Federal Government overseeing state and local governments, which as you point out are often racist and illegal in their actions.

Without Bobby Kennedy sending Federal troops to stop southern "local law officers" and their fellow Klan members from attacking and lynching blacks back in the sixties, the Civil Rights movement would have never amounted to anything but a pipedream.

Further, your premise that free enterprise created Black Wall Street ignores the fact that local racists unrestrained by Federal officers destroyed it. It is this very problem with local and state government being so corrupt and often acting illegally and against it's own people that has caused the Federal Government to reluctantly take a more active role in protecting citizens on a local level when their local government does not. BTW, Black Wall Street was inherently racist in all it's functions.

For more on BWS: http://www.blackwallstreet.freeservers.com/The Story.htm

Seems racist and totally inaccurate for you to imply only black people shine shoes.

I think most people misread the Jackie Robinson result. Back when American professional athletes were all white, they were viewed as heroes and respected whether they deserved it or not.

Now that sports are integrated, athletes are viewed more like pets, or possessions, or "boy"s, and criticized for each and every personal fault they show.

Progress? Somehow I don't think so.

I think you get it, for the most part.

The federal govt. should oversee the states, I'm fine with that, it's the federal government's role. The analysis of Black Wall Street that I provided boils down to two points:
1) Black people could and did thrive without the Civil Rights Act.
2) The govt. failed to prevent white people from burning the place to the ground. If it took federal troops to prevent it, so be it.

Go reread my posts and you'll see that I railed against the feds about #2. It's clear in the constitution and the oaths that our representatives take that their role is to uphold and protect the constitution.

You may want to revisit your history books about reconstruction. The North militarily occupied the South to assure the only civil rights act ever needed (14th amendment, bill of rights), and black people flourished. The occupation also protected those damned radical republicans there who worked with the newly freed slaves.

Your precious federal govt. failed miserably in 1882 when SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal was OK in Plessy v. Ferguson. From 1882 until 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), that was the law of the land and Jim Crow was not only possible but encouraged.

Figure out why reconstruction ended and how the Court that ruled on Plessy was put together and it may open your eyes.

After Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower nationalized the national guard to physically move Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus away from the doors to Little Rock High School so that school could be integrated. JFK and RFK sat on their hands for far too long while the freedom riders went from town to town getting their asses kicked by people who were against desegregation.

Rand Paul was clear from the first interview that things like nationalizing the national guard to integrate Public Sector (not Public Sphere) places was right.

As for Slavery being on its way out, it is clear this was true and why the South seceded in the first place. Before the constitution, the abolitionist movement was already strong and most of the northern states (if not all) had already abolished it. The Constitution forbade the importation of new slaves after 1800, ending that bit of it. The constitution penalized slave states by counting their slaves only 3/5 when it came to govt. representation - the incentive was to free slaves to get full representation. Without full representation, the North went about building a complex railroad system in the North, and the South couldn't muster the votes to equalize the giving away of land for those railroads so they'd be built in the South, too. All new states joining the union would not be slave states after 1820.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Not to nitpick Denny, but your statement about no new slave states after 1820 is deceptive.

There was a bitter, and almost successful effort by southern pols to block Oregon and California statehood - unless they agreed to be slave states. They came within a few votes of *forcing* us to be a slave state.

There was a powerful and vocal minority that was never going to accept the peaceful end of slavery.

 

[barfo]

Slavery ended, but what was put in its place was only slightly better (Jim Crow, segregation, etc.).

Not sure I agree segregation is only slightly better than slavery, but even if it is... what have you got against making things slightly better?

barfo

 

[boatsandstars]

Loving this thread, it may just give birth to a new meme, the "Denny Crane Fail"

 

[Denny Crane]

Not to nitpick Denny, but your statement about no new slave states after 1820 is deceptive.

There was a bitter, and almost successful effort by southern pols to block Oregon and California statehood - unless they agreed to be slave states. They came within a few votes of *forcing* us to be a slave state.

There was a powerful and vocal minority that was never going to accept the peaceful end of slavery.

Not to nitpick myself...

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/exhibits/1857/after/state.htm

Oregonians endorsed the constitution by more than two to one. Their votes against slavery and free blacks, expressing their ideal of an Oregon with only free white labor, were even more striking—with 75 percent voting down slavery and 89 percent in favor of prohibiting the immigration of free blacks to the state.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure I agree segregation is only slightly better than slavery, but even if it is... what have you got against making things slightly better?

barfo

Slavery was ended, but without any sort of plan to integrate the former slaves into society. They were uneducated, from broken (split up) families, and set free unprotected from a great deal of people who weren't these things but were extremely hostile to them.

What do you have about doing things half-assed and calling the "slightly better" good enough?

 

[barfo]

Slavery was ended, but without any sort of plan to integrate the former slaves into society. They were uneducated, from broken (split up) families, and set free unprotected from a great deal of people who weren't these things but were extremely hostile to them.

What do you have about doing things half-assed and calling the "slightly better" good enough?

Nowhere did I say it was good enough. Your plan, on the other hand, would have kept them in slavery longer. That's not half-assed. That's entirely, completely assed.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Nowhere did I say it was good enough. Your plan, on the other hand, would have kept them in slavery longer. That's not half-assed. That's entirely, completely assed.

barfo

My plan? What plan are you talking about... Another strawman, I suppose.

 

[barfo]

My plan? What plan are you talking about... Another strawman, I suppose.

Sorry, it was maxiep's plan that slavery would have gone away if the government just stayed out of the way. It seemed to me that you were co-signing that plan when you said

As for Slavery being on its way out, it is clear this was true and why the South seceded in the first place. Before the constitution, the abolitionist movement was already strong and most of the northern states (if not all) had already abolished it. The Constitution forbade the importation of new slaves after 1800, ending that bit of it. The constitution penalized slave states by counting their slaves only 3/5 when it came to govt. representation - the incentive was to free slaves to get full representation. Without full representation, the North went about building a complex railroad system in the North, and the South couldn't muster the votes to equalize the giving away of land for those railroads so they'd be built in the South, too. All new states joining the union would not be slave states after 1820.

If that wasn't what you were saying, then I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about. I wasn't around after the civil war, so I don't think you can hold me accountable for the Jim Crow and segregation failures.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sorry, it was maxiep's plan that slavery would have gone away if the government just stayed out of the way. It seemed to me that you were co-signing that plan when you said



If that wasn't what you were saying, then I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about. I wasn't around after the civil war, so I don't think you can hold me accountable for the Jim Crow and segregation failures.

barfo

My plan would involve paying out large sums of money as reparations (maybe $2T in today's dollars). And certainly some orderly program that would assure that the newly freed slaves wouldn't be preyed upon, uneducated, and so on.

I only commented that Slavery was doomed, it was just a matter of time. The emancipation proclamation doesn't seem legal, though the 13th and 14th amendments are. The civil war was not about slavery; the emancipation proclamation came 3 years into it, and the North was losing the war (Gettysburgh was pretty far north, you know).

 

[barfo]

My plan would involve paying out large sums of money as reparations (maybe $2T in today's dollars). And certainly some orderly program that would assure that the newly freed slaves wouldn't be preyed upon, uneducated, and so on.

Wow. That's not very libertarian of you. Really, a giant government program to solve a social problem? Time to teach you the secret liberal handshake I guess. Welcome!

I only commented that Slavery was doomed, it was just a matter of time. The emancipation proclamation doesn't seem legal, though the 13th and 14th amendments are.

Could a constitutional amendment not be legal? It seems like they are by definition.
What's the legal problem with the emancipation proclamation?

The civil war was not about slavery; the emancipation proclamation came 3 years into it, and the North was losing the war (Gettysburgh was pretty far north, you know).

Maybe it wasn't all about slavery, but slavery certainly had a lot to do with it. Not sure of your point about the North losing.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow. That's not very libertarian of you. Really, a giant government program to solve a social problem? Time to teach you the secret liberal handshake I guess. Welcome!

The government is good at writing checks. There's no "program" to it.

Could a constitutional amendment not be legal? It seems like they are by definition.
What's the legal problem with the emancipation proclamation?



Maybe it wasn't all about slavery, but slavery certainly had a lot to do with it. Not sure of your point about the North losing.

barfo

The emancipation proclamation wasn't an amendment, it was something like an executive order. I don't see where the president on his own has the authority to do these things, he's not a dictator. Though war time changes a few things. Thus I question the legality of it.

The emancipation proclamation was made in late 1862, and did not free all the slaves - only those in the states that seceded. I don't think it would have been made at all if the North was winning the war - to the victors go the spoils. Lincoln wasn't about freeing the slaves (as president), he was about keeping the union together. A house divided and all that.

The 13th amendment wasn't passed until after Lincoln's assassination.

For the South, it was about Slavery and their way of life. South Carolina was the first state to secede, and their declaration of independence/secession includes a complaint about increasing hostility on the part of non-slave states towards the institution of slavery.

 

[barfo]

The government is good at writing checks. There's no "program" to it.

My plan would involve paying out large sums of money as reparations (maybe $2T in today's dollars). And certainly some orderly program that would assure that the newly freed slaves wouldn't be preyed upon, uneducated, and so on.

So, it's not a program, you just call it a program?

For the South, it was about Slavery and their way of life. South Carolina was the first state to secede, and their declaration of independence/secession includes a complaint about increasing hostility on the part of non-slave states towards the institution of slavery.

Ok... so why did you say it wasn't about slavery? Trying to confuse me?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The program I was speaking of might have been giving the freed slaves their own state, and certainly using the army to protect their lives and property. When you think of "program" it has to be some big tax and over spend kind of thing, it seems.

The war wasn't about slavery, it was about whether states had the right to secede. South Carolina didn't declare war on the north, at least not right away, you know.

 

[barfo]

The war wasn't about slavery, it was about whether states had the right to secede. South Carolina didn't declare war on the north, at least not right away, you know.

I understand the semantic point you are making, but I don't see the relevance. Muskets don't kill rebel soldiers, musket balls do?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

South Carolina fired on US ships in Charleston Harbor. Declarations of War don't come much plainer than that.
/me butting my nose in on this thread.

 

[Eastoff]

South Carolina fired on US ships in Charleston Harbor. Declarations of War don't come much plainer than that.
/me butting my nose in on this thread.

denny just got served

 

[barfo]

The program I was speaking of might have been giving the freed slaves their own state

Because the indian reservations have been such a success, it would be good to have black reservations too.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Because the indian reservations have been such a success, it would be good to have black reservations too.

barfo

Indian reservations aren't states.