• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Republicans do not trust women.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

The press swings at every pitch, we don’t have to.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

Fundamental belief of white supremacy: white people are presumed innocent, minorities are presumed guilty.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Economics / Free Markets Solve Everything / Rand Paul and Civil Rights

Rand Paul and Civil Rights

by John Cole|  May 20, 20103:02 pm| 218 Comments

This post is in: Free Markets Solve Everything, Republican Stupidity, Clown Shoes

FacebookTweetEmail

I watched the videos of Paul yesterday, and as DougJ noted, there is a full-on village freak-out going on. But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.

I like freedom as much as the next person and want as little government intervention into every aspect of life as possible, but if I have to make a judgment call, I place the right of people to be free to be racist below the right of minorities to be freed from racism. Call me crazy. We’ve also decided as a society that we draw the line at allowing people the freedom to rape their kids, to murder each other, and all sort of other stuff. This is not a revolutionary concept, and we tolerate that government “interference” quite capably.

Politically, this is evidence of even more of the GOP minority outreach. I’d like to hear Rand Paul ask Michael Steele how long he would have been willing to wait for local officials to decide whether or not Jim Crow or separate water fountains is unacceptable.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « That was the sin that did Jezebel in
Next Post: There’s no such thing as an original sin »

Reader Interactions

218Comments

  1. 1.

    Paul in KY

    May 20, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    You’re crraaazzzzyyy! Also, this is very good news for John McCain. Too.

    P.S. Lookin forward to whuppin Mr. Paul, here in KY.

  2. 2.

    Alex

    May 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    I know it’s old news but: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/flashback_paul_spokesman_resigned_over_racist_mysp.php?ref=fpb

    DEATH METALLLLLL!!!!!!

    Some of TPM’s readers seem to be mad that it’s the All-Rand-All-The-Time channel, but I think it’s important to milk this idiot for all he’s worth. I think too many people, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, see libertarianism as this sort of mysterious, intellectual society, able to break free of the chains of conventional wisdom, and it’s important to remind them what dangerous idiots so many libertarians really are. I’m seeing a sort of “Well, at least it’s intellectually justified” (which it isn’t) reaction from all sorts of people who I consider smarter than that, and people who wouldn’t be thinking that if it was a Pat Robertson or George Wallace-type figure who had said this.

  3. 3.

    mai naem

    May 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    The guy is an opthamologist. I have 2 questions for him. Did he take Medicare/Medicaid money in his practice? Secondly, should we not have those signals for the blind at crosswalks because,well, it’s so damn expensive to put them up and, wel, blind people are a minority and really it’s too bad they’re disabled. How would his blind patients feel about that?

  4. 4.

    Barbara

    May 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    To be a good politician you generally have to give a higher priority to people (voters) than principles of political philosophy. I don’t think this is a big mystery.

  5. 5.

    licensed to kill time

    May 20, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I read this comment on Benen’s blog this morning and thought it was spot-on:

    Rand Paul’s comments echo another libertarian – Barry Goldwater. He voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and defended his vote late into his life. Goldwater was quite famously not a bigot – he even favored gays in the military.
    __
    What libertarians are guilty of here is philosophical preciousness. That is, their ideas matter more than your reality. Ideologues are customarily inebriated with thought itself. They self-congratulate about consistency and principles. That’s why they’re incompetent to govern. The real world is merely an afterthought to their zealotry.
    Posted by: walt on May 20, 2010 at 9:04 AM

    What walt said.

  6. 6.

    Jimbo

    May 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I’m curious as to Mr. Paul’s stand on abortion rights? Marijuana? Is he Libertarian in those as well?

    Also, I agree with Mr. Cole – I doubt he’s a racist as much as he is stupid…

  7. 7.

    Wag

    May 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    A Tea Bagging view of the Constitution:

    God gave us 10 fingers.

    God Gave us 10 Commandments

    Why, in God’s name, should we feel entitled to any more than 10 Ammendments to our God given Constitution?

    Don’t you see, God doesn’t WANT the Constitution to evolve. That would make it all secular and stuff.

    Can’t have anything secular going on.

  8. 8.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I watched the videos of Paul yesterday, and as DougJ noted, there is a full-on village freak-out going on. But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

    I strongly disagree with that position. Basically, Rand Paul continued to articulate his position that he does not believe in civil rights, particularly if we are talking about aggrieved or persecuted minorities.

    You cannot say in one breath that discrimination is wrong and minorities should have the right to sit at the lunch counter and that you would condemn any business who engaged in such activity; and then in the very next breath, say that you oppose legislation to enforce those rights. You cannot tell me you think people of color should be free from discrimination, but then say that they have no civil right to be free from such discrimination by providing them a right with no remedy to enforce.

    It’s complete and utter bullshit, and I am honestly stunned to see both you and DougJ fall hook, line, and sinker for this bullshit.

  9. 9.

    low-tech cyclist

    May 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    The problem, as Ezra Klein points out, goes far beyond civil rights. The fact is that Rand Paul generally doesn’t like the idea of the government requiring things of the private sector.

    So per Ezra, Paul should be asked whether he believes there should be a minimum wage, whether the government ought to be able to require safety standards like seatbelts in cars, no lead in kids’ toys, blowout preventers on drilling rigs, electrical wiring standards for private homes, etc.

  10. 10.

    LT

    May 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    I think anyone who says that private businesses should have the right to not serve people of color deserves to be called a racist. Are there rules of racism etiquette that make that inappropriate?

    And I was screaming at the Tv last night for Rachel to slap him upside the head with the “Do you want private businesses to allow people with weapons in the store—which made no sense whatsoever. She didn’t do it, but I can’t really blame her, it was so nonsensical it was hard to swim through.

  11. 11.

    MoeLarryAndJesus

    May 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Paul’s stance is shared by more conservatives than you might think. I’ve heard variations on it many times over the years.

    If you ask one of these numbskulls about a scenario where a black family is traveling in the boonies and has a car break down and the only hotel in the area is Whites Only, they’ll just shrug and mumble some crap about how “the market” would take care of it. Or they’d just have to sleep in the car, or maybe find a frigging manger.

    Basically they don’t care. Not their problem. They’re just danged if white property rights should be infringed on, ever.

    These are the rootinest, tootinest idiots on Earth.

  12. 12.

    Wag

    May 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Secondly, should we not have those signals for the blind at crosswalks because,well, it’s so damn expensive to put them up

    Also, the beeping sound annoys the rest of us, and disturbs the sleep of the worthy.

  13. 13.

    Cat Lady

    May 20, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Every extreme is ridiculous, but you can’t even take libertarianism out your front door for a quick walk because once you hit the sidewalk, now what? Who gets what rights on that sidewalk?

    He’s using an intellectuall shibboleth to hide his true racist leanings. Can I prove it? No, but all signs point to yes.

  14. 14.

    Michael

    May 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Saw this elsewhere. I thought the observations to be good.

    Which is a greater evil: any government intrusion into private business, or pervasive institutionalized white supremacism enforced by domestic terrorism?
    …
    I certainly wouldn’t say that modest government regulation is worse than apartheid.
    …
    And states rights are the banner under which institutionalized white supremacism has defended itself throughout American history, from the Civil War to the civil rights movement.
    …
    The voluntary action of a few morally correct Southern whites had been unable to dislodge slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation for decades or centuries. I suspect that in many communities, private businesses that dared offer unsegregated services would have been boycotted out of business.

    On that final point, those businessmen who did deign to traffic with black folks were absolutely ostracized.

    In the end, what it comes down to for the Pauls and the “libertarians”*snicker* is that Rosa Parks was uppity. She should have waited.

  15. 15.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    @Paul in KY: GD’it!!
    I thought I had purchased exclusive rights to this schtick!
    Damn free market, invisible hand, prostate massage, etc.

  16. 16.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    @Wag:

    Also, the beeping sound annoys the rest of us, and disturbs the sleep of the worthy.

    It is a little distracting for the sighted-enabled.

  17. 17.

    Michael

    May 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Of course, on the gun thing, it is a shame that these attacked patrons weren’t strapped with nines and had a few high cap magazines in reserve.

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~chem0110/sitin.jpg

  18. 18.

    toujoursdan

    May 20, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    The problem here is that even the thinking around libertarianism is hyper-individualistic. They just can’t grasp that we live in communities and are influenced and affected by our neighbours.

    The problem in the South wasn’t that a particular restaurant discriminated against African Americans, it was that WHOLE communities did this. Racism, anti-Islamic bigotry, homophobia, etc. can encompass whole communities and make it difficult for estranged groups to have real freedom at all. If this was extended to things like private housing, you could have apartheid again.

    Furthermore, I can only hope that Rand’s opponent starts questioning whether Rand believes that private companies should be able to ignore workplace safety regulations if they can ignore discrimination laws. That will go over real well in those mining communities, especially after the WV disaster.

    Libertarianism is a ridiculous theory. It is completely theoretical.

  19. 19.

    sukabi

    May 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Paul’s answer was a well executed blob of weasel-words that will leave most folks taking away exactly what they want to believe about about him…his marketing team has done an excellent job.

    his answer has no real meaning, and doesn’t give away one bit about his actual beliefs… and it’s one that he has rehearsed repeatedly… compare his NPR interview with his appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show… an almost verbatim repeat…

    what’s most telling is his refusal to answer direct questions regarding separate counters for blacks and whites and then conflating those civil rights issues with gun rights.

  20. 20.

    pablo

    May 20, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Rand Paul and Civil Wrongs.

  21. 21.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    It’s complete and utter bullshit, and I am honestly stunned to see both you and DougJ fall hook, line, and sinker for this bullshit.

    They’re not really very bright.

  22. 22.

    Martin

    May 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    @Corner Stone: Just close your eyes, then.

  23. 23.

    hal

    May 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Sigh. Here we are saying, sure, Rand Paul believes independent businesses have a right not to hire blacks, jews, gays, whites, really; anyone they don’t like because of racist or homophobic ideology, but he’s not racist himself.

    My freakout is because if Rand Paul had his way, I might be out of a job with no real recourse other than to work for the state. This is the same bullshit argument conservatives make saying slavery was a state issue.

    This reminds me of the whole race and IQ debate. Patting a black person on the head and telling them not to be offended, your just not as smart as whites or Asians. But no offence intended, it’s just the reality.

  24. 24.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color.

    Sure, but so what? Rand Paul’s rhetoric — including his dog whistles against affirmative action (“institutional racism!”) and his refusal to say to Rachel Maddow that a public accommodation had no right to exclude blacks — are turned to give support and comfort to racists, no less than Lee Atwater’s strategies did for Reagan.

    I could care less what Paul’s personal feelings are, but the policies he supports are vile.

    But, of course they are. He’s a loony libertarian.

    ETA:

    Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist.

    No, he goes further than that. By implying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far in addressing anything other than government racism, he’s saying that the power of the State could and should be brought to bear to enforce a lunch counter’s ban on blacks (or whoever). If you claim that one has a property right to discriminate, then you also claim the power of the state to enforce it.

    That is, in fact, what we had back when it was a “local issue,” which is, of course, what the CRA was all about.

  25. 25.

    Matt C.

    May 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Look, it’s quite simple. Paul says any government interference in private business is unacceptable. I humbly disagree. We, as a society, have put together systems and laws which allow free enterprise to exist and thrive. It’s therefore not unreasonable for us, as a society, to limit certain business behaviors, like denying service to a person with black skin.

  26. 26.

    Cacti

    May 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    I’m beginning to think that Chris Rock was right when he said you practically have to shoot Medgar Evers nowadays to be considered a racist.

  27. 27.

    rob!

    May 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Liberals who aren’t Democrats per se are man enough to endure being called Democrats.

    Conservatives who are too pussy to withstand the stares of their friends and co-workers when they spout their GOP talking points call themselves Libertarians.

    Ron Paul gets away with being nuts because he’s old and he seems like that crazy uncle most people have–tough to tolerate in large doses, but mostly harmless.

    But when you see the same moronic ideas spew from the mouth of a younger version, you see the Crazy for what it is–dangerous and scary.

    How can I donate to Jack Conway?

  28. 28.

    JCT

    May 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    @mai naem:

    The guy is an opthamologist. I have 2 questions for him. Did he take Medicare/Medicaid money in his practice?

    Well, he’s apparently on record as being against cuts in Medicare reimbursements to docs.

    What a surprise.

    He’s a delightful piece of work.

  29. 29.

    hal

    May 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    PS. Isn’t this just code to white racists that he sympathizes with hard working white folks who don’t get why all these lazies are living off of welfare?

  30. 30.

    bloodstar

    May 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    He’s not a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist for frak’s sake.

  31. 31.

    Mark S.

    May 20, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    @licensed to kill time:

    What libertarians are guilty of here is philosophical preciousness.

    Exactly, though I would add plenty of historical blindness.

    @Jimbo:

    I don’t know about pot, but Rand is extremely pro-life, no exceptions for rape, etc. I find it amazing that someone who is so against government regulation has no problem with the government forcing a woman go through a pregnancy against her will.

  32. 32.

    toujoursdan

    May 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    @hal:

    The unspoken part of Paul’s agenda is that while he says the State shouldn’t discriminate, he also doesn’t seem to believe that the State should provide services at all. They should all be provided by the private sector – schools, roads, buses, trains, etc. They should all be privatized.

    So ultimately you’re SOL if you’re part of the wrong group of people.

  33. 33.

    zzyzx

    May 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Someone on a different thread posted how easy it would be to have legalized genocide under libertarianism which trumps my concept of using no compete clauses in contracts everywhere to bring back effective slavery; have hidden clauses in normal transactions require people to work exclusively for my company for $0.01 a year.

    Between losing all free speech rights – not relevant when there’s no public property – and being terrified to do anything without having a lawyer present because contract law trumps everything, a libertarian society would be massively less free than our own.

  34. 34.

    geg6

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Sigh.

    I have no doubts regarding the racism of either of the Pauls.

    Daddy:

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/whos-his-daddy-looking-back-at-paul.html

    As for Sonny Boy, well, he sure hangs out with a lotta militia types, who (I’ve been told) aren’t usually big on diversity:

    http://www.bluebluegrass.com/2010/03/30/rand-paul-the-tea-party-and-the-militia-groups/

    I guess hanging out with Birchers and militias is not evidence of bigotry in some places, but where I live, they are synonymous.

  35. 35.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    @Martin: You make a good point. I’ll close my eyes and drown out the beeping noise.

  36. 36.

    JCT

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    @Mark S.:

    I don’t know about pot, but Rand is extremely pro-life, no exceptions for rape, etc. I find it amazing that someone who is so against government regulation has no problem with the government forcing a woman go through a pregnancy against her will.

    That’s an easy one– just like racial discrimination, the right to choose an abortion doesn’t directly affect *him*. And that’s all he cares about.

  37. 37.

    charlequin

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    It really comes down to whether one thinks there’s a practical difference between racism and racist or effectively-racist ideas on the part of a person driven by deep-felt animus towards persons of color (I’m sure one can fill in many examples here) and said same racism and racist or effectively-racist ideas on the part of a person driven merely by complete and utter disinterest in the well-being of persons of color. I’m willing to mentally attribute Rand and his father to the latter category, but I’m thinking it’s a bit of a distinction without a difference, if you get me.

  38. 38.

    Short Bus Bully

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Bullshit.

    If you throw a party and a bunch of racist motherfuckers show up your reaction to these people demonstrates A LOT about how you truly believe. By opposing Civil Rights for all Rand Paul is about opposing freedom for all. He supports allowing people to discriminate against others if they wish to.

    How is that not racist?

    Little Green Footballs says it best:

    Paul’s position that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act is a principled stance. And that principle can be succinctly stated: property rights take precedence over human rights.

  39. 39.

    matoko_chan

    May 20, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    well…..Paul isn’t a libertarian….he is anti-choice.
    A true libertarian cannot support blanket anti-abortion legislation.

    I submitted this to the UD…..im so sick of rasmussen fake statistics and FOX fake-news.
    if the urban dictionary editors accept it, we can google bomb it onto the front page.
    motie engineering FTW!

  40. 40.

    Comrade Javamanphil

    May 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    The difference between “principled libertarianism” and “libertarianism used to hide your racism” is what exactly?

  41. 41.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    May 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology.

    Yes and pure Communism has never been tried either, and boy would it ever work if it were, I tell you. The version they tried in the Soviet Union was flawed, and the one in China right now is basically Capitalism.

    Conservatism also in its pure form would work wonderfully, as we keep hearing from conservatives, it’s just that gosh darn it, no one’s ever done it right.

    Climate change denial its pure form is excellent also, not this version that George Will practices (splitter!), and if anyone did offshore drilling in its real pure form it would solve all of our problems.

    We need a word for this that hasn’t been dreamt up yet, or a new verb tense, the past-future-imaginary-ideal. Or something.

  42. 42.

    thomas

    May 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    it has become clear that for the true-believer libertarian liberty is theirs; everyone else is on-their-own. they are not members of a society where rules provide some balance.
    my rights – YES, your rights – your problem.
    As I said before, property rights trump human rights.

  43. 43.

    Eric S.

    May 20, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    @mai naem: Where do you live? The only place I’ve seen the crossing walk audio signals were in Toronto. We don’t have them here in the Windy City.

  44. 44.

    eemom

    May 20, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    this must be some kind of record for crash’n’burn. On Tuesday night this freakazoid was The Great White Teabagger Hope. Took him less than 24 hours to fuck the whole thing up. Racist or not, he’s pretty stoopid.

  45. 45.

    jl

    May 20, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    I think Rand Paul is tap dancing around the old conflict between the practical necessity of people in a free society to perceive that they are being treated as equals and fairly in their daily lives doing business and interacting with others, and a certain conception of the freedom of association.

    Does freedom of association extend to businesses that claim to offer some kind of trade with the general public. I think Atrios says, if these businesses are licensed by the government, then there is no conflict.

    An extreme libertarian like Paul probably thinks 99 percent of business licensing is BS, so doesn’t care about it much.

    Not sure we can tell from R Paul’s statements what his true beliefs are on race and ethnicity. I think he is guilty of what John Adams called ‘idiotology’, that is blindly following an ideology that is carried away far beyond the bounds of any feasible earthly reality.

    In an attempt to reach teabaggers, should any come this way, I mentioned in a comment in a previous thread that our venerated Holy founders thought about whether a free society could function on Rand Paul’s principles. And of those who expressed an opinion, the answer was a definite ‘no.’

    At the risk of being accused of comment whoring:
    https://balloon-juice.com/2010/05/20/drudge-traffic/#comment-1775331

  46. 46.

    HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist

    May 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    What amazes me is that no one — and I mean no one — in media would ever take an anarchist seriously. And yet the implications of putting libertarian and anarchist principles into practice look identical to me.

  47. 47.

    MikeJ

    May 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    @bloodstar: So what’s the libertarian take on the civil rights act? Property über alles?

  48. 48.

    goposaur

    May 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    repackaged Anarchist

    When are you going to hold a Tunch lookalike contest? I have a winning entry – Sam Cat.
    http://i954.photobucket.com/albums/ae30/rte148/DSCN0096.jpg?t=1274383641

  49. 49.

    Paul in KY

    May 20, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    @Corner Stone: Sorry, I’d always wanted to do the ‘good for John McCain bit’ & I saw my chance & I took it!

  50. 50.

    Cacti

    May 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Paul can’t properly be considered Randian either.

    Ayn was vehemently pro-choice.

  51. 51.

    Zifnab

    May 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    You cannot tell me you think people of color should be free from discrimination, but then say that they have no civil right to be free from such discrimination by providing them a right with no remedy to enforce.

    Sure you can. But first, you have to come to the conclusion that property rights are more important than civil rights. Once you have declared that my right to dispose of my hamburgers how I choose is more important than your right to eat, it’s easy to see how my business hold more virtue than your person.

    The discrimination is in how I choose to run my business. It’s like the kindergarteners on the playgrounds, where one guy brings his own baseball and refuses to play catch with anyone outside his circle of friends. It’s HIS baseball. You don’t have the right to catch it. Were this the school’s ball, you’d have an argument. And were Rand on the playground, he claims he’d refuse to play ball with the kid who refused to share.

    But then Rand takes the fatal next step of saying that we shouldn’t have public property – that there should be no communal sports equipment or, in fact, a school yard to play it on. His philosophy might hold a bit of water if there was always a public lunch counter to attend. But Rand doesn’t want equal access anything. He wants to privatize the whole lot.

    And when you say, “I only want civil rights laws to apply to public property” and then proceed to say, “I don’t want public property to exist”, you’ve tacitly admitted that you support abolishing civil rights. Simple as that.

  52. 52.

    J.W. Hamner

    May 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology.

    That’s mainly why I’m excited about it this whole thing. People who don’t get in arguments on the internet (i.e. 99.9% of ’em) have no idea how crazy libertarians really are… they just hear things about free markets and smoking pot and think that it sounds reasonable, if a little bit fringe… but there really are a large number of them with property rights views so absolutist, that they consider the Civil Rights Act as an Attack on Freedom or whatever.

  53. 53.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @Bill E Pilgrim: Rand Paulism can never fail, it can only be failed?

  54. 54.

    soonergrunt

    May 20, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:
    This.
    To expand,

    You cannot say in one breath that discrimination is wrong and minorities should have the right to sit at the lunch counter and that you would condemn any business who engaged in such activity; and then in the very next breath, say that you oppose legislation to enforce those rights. You cannot tell me you think people of color should be free from discrimination, but then say that they have no civil right to be free from such discrimination by providing them a right with no remedy to enforce.

    It is this discontinuity that belies the whole “intellectual opposition” position with regard to civil rights.
    It is a defect of intellect that comes up with this idea.

  55. 55.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Why is it important again that one need to “be” a racist, that in their soul they’re convinced of racist things, when you’re pointing out that they’re in favor of racist policies?

    Who gives a shit if some Southerner defending segregation did so on the basis of “States’ Rights” and personally had no ill-will toward African Americans?

    Who gives a shit if some backer and enabler (or, conversely, would-be) of South African apartheid really thought it may have been wrong and maybe African blacks were being mistreated, but that forcing the nation to change its policies were wrong?

    Why this focus on whether or not Rand Paul is “really” racist just because he says he wouldn’t have supported the Civil Rights Act?

    What the hell has happened to people? Since when is public democracy about someone’s “soul” or undetectable internal states?

  56. 56.

    Michael

    May 20, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/03/rand-paul-throws-play-soldier-dress-up.html

    I never get tired of that.

  57. 57.

    zzyzx

    May 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Well at least he didn’t have to fire his campaign manager for being racist or anything…

    I especially like the non-apology apology of, “I have never heard a single utterance of racism from this staffer nor do I believe him to have any racist tendencies. However, it is impossible to present the ideas and reforms we need in this country with this controversy present.”

  58. 58.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @Paul in KY: You can share the McCain schtick all you like – but when someone says, “Call me crazy but…”
    It’s MY schtick to then CALL THEM CRAZY!

  59. 59.

    Nimm

    May 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    @toujoursdan:

    Furthermore, I can only hope that Rand’s opponent starts questioning whether Rand believes that private companies should be able to ignore workplace safety regulations if they can ignore discrimination laws. That will go over real well in those mining communities, especially after the WV disaster. Libertarianism is a ridiculous theory. It is completely theoretical.

    Libertarian thinking:
    * Let’s do away with occupational and food safety regulations.
    – But how we will stop people from eating poisons?
    * The market will take care of that, people won’t buy those products, and there will be incentives to sell safe products.
    – But what about the people that die in the meantime, before the information gets out? Information isn’t perfect. You don’t know what you’re eating all the time, or whether it’s safe or not.
    * Well, we can still have product liability laws to compensate people that are hurt.
    – And what if you can’t find a good lawyer? Or you have a severe disadvantage when your lawyer is up against 20 being paid by the hour by the company you’re suing?

    etc etc etc.
    ……………….

    Real World thinking:
    * Let’s make it illegal to sell unsafe foods in the first place.
    – Okey doke!

    ….

    The inevitable result of libertarianism requires 30 sideways steps for every step forward, most of which are based on very dicey (if not disproven) assumptions about the way the world works. All in order to remain philosophically pure about the “market.”

    Or, instead of doing that, you can just give the libertarian the finger, and take the step forward, because sorry Monsanto, we don’t want you selling food with poison. And maybe you won’t, but just in case, we’ll make it against the law, mmmmkay?

  60. 60.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    @Matt C.:

    Look, it’s quite simple. Paul says any government interference in private business is unacceptable.

    Someone in the coal-mining state of Kentucky should ask him how he feels about Federal mine safety regulations.

  61. 61.

    charlequin

    May 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    @Mark S.: There’s a probably almost equally-prevalent strain of extremist pro-life libertarianism right next to the pro-choice strain. If you start from {crazy absolutist libertarian positions} + {belief that a fetus is a person} you’re pretty much bound to taking an absolutist anti-abortion position. It’s actually a quite natural fit with modern American ultra-libertarianism (as a predominantly white-male-of-privilege philosophy) for the same reason tacit racism is: it fits with a rubric of absolutist personal rights and a government that exists only to use violence to enforce said rights, and it doesn’t affect [i]you[/i] all that much.

  62. 62.

    Michael

    May 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    He’s not a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist for frak’s sake.

    That’s “constimatooshinalist” for the militia set.

  63. 63.

    Chuck Butcher

    May 20, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    @Eric S.:
    I have them in Baker City, OR – somewhere E of BFE. But then, we’re hicks…

  64. 64.

    Rick Taylor

    May 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Secondly, should we not have those signals for the blind at crosswalks because,well, it’s so damn expensive to put them up and, wel, blind people are a minority and really it’s too bad they’re disabled.

    __
    In the libertarian utopia that followed the complete ending of government regulation and the privatization of all resources, the people who maintained and rented out the streets would create signals for the blind that were much better than the ones we have to day, to maximize their business.
    __
    I was a libertarian years and years ago; this is kind of how the arguments went.

  65. 65.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    @Mark S.:

    I don’t know about pot, but Rand is extremely pro-life, no exceptions for rape, etc. I find it amazing that someone who is so against government regulation has no problem with the government forcing a woman go through a pregnancy against her will.

    Not when he’s a deluded, selfish, racist enabling “libertarian” asshole. There’s nothing really amazing about that. The man’s father is the same fucking way. Where is all this surprise coming from about Rand Paul? Honestly, this “But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color” bullshit is only marginally more respectable than this drivel from Sullivan today, entitled “In Defense of Rand Paul (Kinda)”:

    This is why so many feel contempt for Rand Paul. But it’s one reason I am glad he will be more integrated into the American conversation. (ed. note: Stab me in the fucking face.) I don’t agree with Paul on the Civil Rights Act because I believe that the legacy of slavery and segregation made a drastic and historic redress morally vital for this country’s coherence, integrity and unity. But was the Act in many respects an infringement of freedom? Of course it was.
    __
    To bar private business owners from discriminating in employment would have been an unthinkable power for the federal government for much of American history. Now it’s accepted as inevitable for almost everyone who can claim to be treated unjustly for an aspect of their identity irrelevant to a job. What I believe was a necessary act to redress a uniquely American historic evil became a baseline for every minority group with a claim to grievance.

    I’m so sorry that granting people of color and other aggrieved minorities the ability to operate in society as something beyond second-class citizens was “an infringement of freedom.” So good to know that all of the ills of institutionalized racism and discrimination were cured in 1964. Right, Sullivan?

    This is a fucking joke.

  66. 66.

    Trinity

    May 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    @El Cid: This, this, and this again!

  67. 67.

    shortdog

    May 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.

    I agree.
    Paul also had similar sentiments about the Americans With Disabilities Act – that it should be up to states and individuals. I’m sure those disabled Vets from Iraq and Afghanistan would be thrilled with that.

  68. 68.

    cfaller96

    May 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    John, you and Josh at TPM and Atrios seem to be saying the same thing, if not directly: Rand Paul probably doesn’t approve of racism, but it certainly seems like he condones it. Over and over again Rachel Maddow asked him if he condoned racist activity, and over and over again he would say he doesn’t approve of it. These are not the same things, and I suspect Rand Paul knows that.

    There is a difference between approving of something and condoning it. Based on that interview last night, I believe Rand Paul condones racism. I hope the Beltway freakout continues, because I think it’s important that everyone understand the importance and the consequences of condoning something.

  69. 69.

    Anonymous37

    May 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Josh Marshall for the win:

    there was the case back in December in which Rand’s Senate campaign spokesman Chris Hightower had to resign because of racist posts on his Myspace page. Looked at in broad terms you’ve got a couple of guys who apparently aren’t racist in any way but happen to stumble their way into close associations with racists with an astonishing frequency. It’s almost like a painful race version of that classic Onion headline: “Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My —-.”

  70. 70.

    John Cole

    May 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    He’s not a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist for frak’s sake.

    His argument here is pure libertarianism.

    And I don’t know how I am being “fooled” by the guy. I think he’s a complete fool and idiot and has a completely ridiculous political philosophy. I’m sure a lot of his supporters are motivated by pure racism, but he strikes me as dumb enough that he actually believes his position.

  71. 71.

    jl

    May 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Nimm: The libertarian answer to your questions is that if it coulda it woulda and it should, and if it couldn’t it woudn’t and it shouldn’t.

    What ever you choices you see people make in a near anarchy are would should and did happen, and these are the only ones consistent with Freedom. And if you wave your hands enough, you can also explain how it was all optimal, no matter what happens.

    It is kind of a like a crabby selfish Zen Buddhism. Go with the force, dude.

  72. 72.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Sure you can. But first, you have to come to the conclusion that property rights are more important than civil rights.

    And that’s what really cheeses me off about loony libertarians like Paul. They ignore — deliberately, no doubt — that in a society, rights come into conflict all the time. Back in the ’60s, the United States passed a law saying that property rights don’t trump civil rights.

    When it comes to my right to breathe unpolluted air, eat untainted food and drink unpoisoned water, I’m glad as hell Paul’s precious free market isn’t in the driver’s seat.

  73. 73.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    May 20, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    @Corner Stone:

    Rand Paulism can never fail, it can only be failed?

    Exactly. It’s one of the virtues of being imaginary.

  74. 74.

    Calouste

    May 20, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    It’s complete and utter bullshit, and I am honestly stunned to see both you and DougJ fall hook, line, and sinker for this bullshit.

    This.

  75. 75.

    "Fair and Balanced" Dave

    May 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    @Cacti:

    Ayn was vehemently pro-choice.

    Nope. Ayn was vehemently pro-Ayn. I seriously doubt she would have given a shit about reproductive choice if she didn’t have a uteris.

  76. 76.

    Sly

    May 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.

    What he does is illustrate that libertarianism, at its core, amounts to little else than pseudo-intellectual masturbation for solipsists. In order for the ideology to function coherently, everything must be detached from circumstance so that the practical implications of what they recommend are swept under the rug. Everything appears to be an academic exercise to them because that’s the entire point. The fact that discrimination had a real impact on people’s lives is either inconsequential or not recognized: Only the theoretical impact of a government having “too much” authority (whatever that entails) matters.

    The problem isn’t so much that it is intellectually dishonest (though it is), but thats its single-minded focus on a theoretical question, at the expense of practical circumstance, makes it heartless. In most cases, libertarians fail to recognize how the lack of regulating bad shit actually lets the same bad shit hurt people, in real ways. The libertarians who do recognize this hold it up as a virtue, and have endeavored to labor this high-minded spitefulness as “intellectual consistency”.

    But they’re just being dicks. That’s basically your modern libertarian: someone who enjoys being a dick.

  77. 77.

    Sentient Puddle

    May 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    @bloodstar:

    He’s not a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist for frak’s sake.

    I’m not sure that really helps his case because the semantics of the term end up making it meaningless. Does it mean that he adheres to the constitution? Wouldn’t that mean most of the rest of us are also constitutionalists? Or doesn’t it imply that there’s a large subset of people who don’t adhere to the constitution? And isn’t the constitution ambiguous enough that we need to get nine extremely smart people to state that this is what the constitution means in the context of this particular law? And so on and so forth.

    And these are just the immediate questions and implications that have to be addressed. In my mind, if someone wants to call themselves a constitutionalist, then they’re basically saying “my reading of the constitution is right, yours is wrong” as smugly as possible. Because those questions, more often than not, are glossed over, at best.

  78. 78.

    matoko_chan

    May 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist,

    nah, hes a racist. if he was a real libertarian he would support reproductive choice.
    Rand Paul is a socon (aka a teabagger) pretending be a libertarian.

  79. 79.

    JGabriel

    May 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Midnight Marauder:

    You cannot say in one breath that discrimination is wrong and minorities should have the right to sit at the lunch counter and that you would condemn any business who engaged in such activity; and then in the very next breath, say that you oppose legislation to enforce those rights.

    Yep.

    Paul argued that government shouldn’t be telling people what to do, and, while he wouldn’t frequent an establishment – for instance a restaurant – that refused to serve blacks, that he didn’t think it was the role of government to interfere in that decision.

    The problem is that government is involved either way: to enforce the restaurant’s discriminatory policy, the police may need to be called in to remove a black patron for trespassing.

    The question now becomes: what is the proper role of government in this situation – to enforce the patron’s right to be served, or the restaurant’s right to discriminate?

    Either decision requires government action (police force) and the expense of government funds, so Paul’s stance of government non-interference, while rhetorically facile, is moot.

    The correct answer, of course, is that the government should side with the patron, in order to ensure the right of its citizens to participate in an open society and a free marketplace.

    That’s what the Civil Rights Acts were about, ensuring that government resources were used to ensure an open society and free marketplace, and to ensure that they weren’t used to continue discrimination on the basis of race or gender.

    Paul’s stance is not just morally wrong, but intellectually wrong and inconsistent, because there’s no way to separate the act of private discrimination from the public enforcement of it.

    .

  80. 80.

    numbskull

    May 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @hal:

    My freakout is because if Rand Paul had his way, I might be out of a job with no real recourse other than to work for the state. This is the same bullshit argument conservatives make saying slavery was a state issue.

    Which, arguably, is why the military and government have disproportionate percentages of non-white employees. For a long, long time, these entities were largely the only ones where non-whites could get a job or have some hope of equal treatment once hired.

    Which, of course, plays right into the hands of the Pauls and other racists who would maintain that non-whites can’t compete in the “real” market place and so have to work in the public sector.

  81. 81.

    eemom

    May 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Is it the Civil Rights Act that gave Sullivan the right to demand that Elena Kagan out herself as gay even if she isn’t? Cuz, ya know, he’s one o’them minority groups with a claim to grievance.

  82. 82.

    geg6

    May 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    @Jimbo:

    Mr. Rand Paul is pro-forced birth.

    Not much for the whole consistency thing, Mr. Paul is.

  83. 83.

    geg6

    May 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    This.

    Thank you.

  84. 84.

    AxelFoley

    May 20, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and yells ‘Rabbit Season!” like a duck…

  85. 85.

    stannate

    May 20, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    From the TPM article:

    Looked at in broad terms you’ve got a couple of guys who apparently aren’t racist in any way but happen to stumble their way into close associations with racists with an astonishing frequency. It’s almost like a painful race version of that classic Onion headline: “Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My —-.”

    I love the association here, but I continue to shake my head at how the Onion can no longer parody a society that seemingly parodies itself at will.

  86. 86.

    matoko_chan

    May 20, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    @Sentient Puddle: there are only two kinds of constitutionalists……the “living constitution” people and the “constitution in exile” people.
    Naturally the Rand Paul types want to preserve the +200 year old “intent” of the original constitution, and so they are originalists…when white protestant males ruled the earth.

  87. 87.

    Bill E Pilgrim

    May 20, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    @Eric S.: Berkeley, San Francisco, and Paris France, just to name a few more. Probably many others, those are just the ones I’m in enough to have noticed.

  88. 88.

    charlequin

    May 20, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @geg6: Again, I’d hold that Rand Paul’s pseudo-intellectual gloss over his complete disregard for the rights of women (since he isn’t one) is very much consistent with his pseudo-intellectual gloss over his complete disregard for the rights of PoCs (since he isn’t one either.)

  89. 89.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    @John Cole:

    And I don’t know how I am being “fooled” by the guy.

    But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

    You are saying it is unfair to categorize someone whose policies actively champion discrimination as being a racist. You are attempting to tell people that we cannot discern his opinion on civil rights and minorities, when everything he has said and done indicates that PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS are more important than CIVIL RIGHTS.

    You know exactly what this guy thinks about people of color. Stop acting like a dumbass and connect the fucking dots.

  90. 90.

    Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)

    May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I posted this in a different thread but I think I’ll repeat it here:
    If his Democratic opponent has any sense, he’ll seize on the following factoid about Libertarians: they don’t believe that the government should insure banking deposits (they would basically abolish the FDIC given the chance). Even if no one in Kentucky is bothered by Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Act, I’m sure there are enough sane people in Kentucky that can make the connection between the financial meltdown and losing the entire amounts of their savings and checking accounts in a failed bank in the absence of the FDIC. I think he can be thoroughly trounced by focusing on choice economic issues that force him to take a “principled stand.”

    BTW, wrt to the Civil Rights Act, given that property owners might have to rely on the government (police, etc.) to enforce their property rights in the event that an undesirable refused to vacate the premises, how does Rand square away the fact that said undesirable pays towards the salaries of the police from his/her taxes? I’m not sure whether Libertarians address this and would love to find out what they think. Maybe they envision a scenario in which each property owner hires his/her own squad of gun-toting security staff.

  91. 91.

    kommrade reproductive vigor

    May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color.

    Except that if a business wants to bar them based on their skin color, that’s hunky dory and anything else is a sad day for the magical free market.

    Right.

    It’s strange. I know I’ve read several posts here about dog whistles. But Paul II sticks them in all of his orifices and strains and you come over all confused.

  92. 92.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    A lot of Southern segregationists assured us that their stance had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with logical gradualism and social stability.

    The Segregationists’ Arguments
    __
    The case for the defenders of segregation rested on four arguments:
    __
    The Constitution did not require white and African American children to attend the same schools.
    __
    Social separation of blacks and whites was a regional custom; the states should be left free to regulate their own social affairs.
    __
    Segregation was not harmful to black people.
    __
    Whites were making a good faith effort to equalize the two educational systems. But because black children were still living with the effects of slavery, it would take some time before they were able to compete with white children in the same classroom.

    What’s more a long list of distinguished legal minds and Constitutionalists argued many times that segregation had nothing whatsoever to do with racism, but with Constitutional rights.

    It’s really quite ridiculous to call the men who advocated for and defended Southern segregation racists, or consciously backing racism, because to a one they were principled Constitutionalists and defenders of an appropriate rate of social change.

    John W. Davis, for example, passionately urged the Supreme Court to let South Carolina continue with its good faith efforts to equalize black & white education, which surely it would manage eventually, and they needed to do so without harsh & oppressive federal judicial intervention.

    It was all about Southern states finding their own best ways to slowly equalize blacks & whites, and segregation was in no way predicated upon the inferiority of blacks but rather a way of recognizing the past injuries of slavery and taking adequate precautions from integrating whites & blacks too rapidly.

  93. 93.

    Dannie22

    May 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    I didn’t read the whole thread so it’s possible that someone already answered this question. But I’m gonna ask anyway: what do white folks call racist? John Cole doesn’t believe Rand is racist he just doesn’t believe in civil rights. I strongly believe Rand is as racist as Strom Thurmond.

    So someone explain to me please: what do you call racist ?

  94. 94.

    Nimm

    May 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    @Sly:

    But they’re just being dicks. That’s basically your modern libertarian: someone who enjoys being a dick.

    Which you wouldn’t necessarily expect from a pro-legalization crowd.

    The assholery really goes to the bone, apparently.

  95. 95.

    TomG

    May 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Okay. I’ll just throw this out there – you all are loving yet another opportunity to laugh at those stupid crazy libertarians…
    Is there ANYTHING we believe in that you agree with ?
    Would you ever take any libertarian seriously to try and arrive at common ground?
    Or don’t you have any idea what we believe in aside from what Rand Paul and Reason magazine discuss ?

  96. 96.

    numbskull

    May 20, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    @JGabriel: THIS.

    Elsewhere on the toobs, I came across a point that buttresses your EXCELLENT synopsis.

    Libertarinism per this scenario is just another example of privatizing profits and socializing costs. All of the various things that allow a restaurant to exist — sidewalks for customers to walk in from, roads for customers to drive in on, clean water supplied right into the restaurant, police and fire services to protect the restaurant, ALL cost more than the restaurant, or even a collection of restaurants, could afford. ALL are needed for the restaurant owner to make a profit. ALL are publicly-funded. So why should an individual restaurant owner be allowed to use all of these costly services and products paid for by the public without also being required to provide access to the public?

  97. 97.

    georgia pig

    May 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    The two are not mutually exclusive – his “intellectual grounds” are, perhaps unconsciously (I doubt it), racist. You can’t get off the racism hook by simply disregarding the effects that you know (or should know) are very likely to happen. A basic flaw of many libertarian arguments is the failure to comprehend that humans are social creatures and cannot survive without social structures, and that, in the absence of a formal governmental process, will form “private” governments that effectively fulfill the same function, without constitutional or political accountability beyond the niche markets they serve. These governments will externalize their costs to people they don’t need, at least in the short term interest mode in which most businesses operate (think BP). There is ample evidence that human beings, being human, will engage in discrimination, if only for perceived “practical” reasons that don’t reach KKK status. For example, it is a given that a significant number of businesses will arrive at the business strategy of refusing to accept patrons from minority groups because of a fear of alienating potential patrons from other groups who have more money in the aggregate. This is how minority groups get further marginalized. The individual decisions might be simply be pragmatic, and doesn’t per se mean the proprietor is “racist” in some overt David Duke kind of way. Rand Paul is an idiot or a liar about his intentions, you pick.

  98. 98.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @Midnight Marauder: Testify! Tehs-tuh-fye!!

  99. 99.

    Mark S.

    May 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    Aaaaah FYWP! It’s always when I make a long comment. So fuck it, just the link on Rasmussen from 538.

  100. 100.

    micah616

    May 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @John Cole: Dear John Cole, your white privilege is showing. It’s not attractive. Please put it away. And tell DougJ to put his away. Also, too.

  101. 101.

    shirk

    May 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    I place the right of people to be free to be racist below the right of minorities to be freed from racism.

    Holy shit, that’s it in a nutshell for me. Exceptionally well-written line. Bravo.

  102. 102.

    zzyzx

    May 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    @TomG: many of us are former Libertarians, so yes, we have a clue. I believe in some of the ideas – legalizing some drugs, increasing police protection – but ultimately feel that the economic aspect of Libertarianism comes from confusing a rather simplified model of the economy for the actual thing.

    In the real world, starving people can’t just be wished out of existence. They do things like kidnap rich people for ransom, which makes everyone less free.

  103. 103.

    Comrade Colette Collaboratrice

    May 20, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    @Eric S.:

    Where do you live? The only place I’ve seen the crossing walk audio signals were in Toronto. We don’t have them here in the Windy City.

    We have them here in Oakland. Of course, they’re mostly meant to help the strapping young bucks find their way across to the corner store when they’re blind drunk, so they can buy some more steaks with their food stamps.

  104. 104.

    jl

    May 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    @matoko_chan: And I think at least one of the founders would be classified as a ‘living constitutionalist’ today, not an original intenter: James Madison.

    Read the development of Madison’s thought on the Bank of the United States. He changed is mind, partly because he felt that the developing social consensus on the constitutionality of the first bank had a role to play in constitutional interpretation.

    He said it very plainly, and when I have tried to bring this up with Federalist Society type lawyers, they just have tantrums and assertions.

    It is true that strict consistency was not a strong point of Madison’s thought as it developed over the years. But I guess that is the difference between people like Madison who could do something towards some good ends in the real world, and idiotologists like the Pauls and a sizable chunk of the current Supreme Court.

    IMO, the founders themselves saw the constitution as an imperfect document designed to improve social welfare, and put checks on the power of the federal government. It was an imperfect tool to provide a means to a practical end.

    Making a cargo cult type fetish of original intent, was not the original intent.

  105. 105.

    DJShay

    May 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    But see, this is EXACTLY the argument “glibertarians” and the right want to have. Here’s what they are really saying, because the end result is ALWAYS resegregation.

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/20/in-response-to-looney-left-rand-paul-says-he-supports-civil-rights-act/#comments

    All this talk about Government not dictating to private business is just a very convenient way to discriminate. What Paul seems to be saying is “I abhor racism in all it’s forms, but hey, it’s the free market after all. If it results in resegregation, so be it. And I dare you to prove I’m racist”. And this seems to be the thought process of a LOT of the tea party movement. Don’t tell me that movement was started because of “Big Government” They didn’t show up until Obama was inaugrated. Racism is the main energy behind it wrapped up in a “big government” bow. They long for a time when they felt superior to all other races in this country and were given deferential treatment because of it. That’s what’s behind the “take my country back” mantra.

  106. 106.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    @Dannie22:
    Racists are exclusively individuals who in their hearts think people of other races are inferior, and make sure to publicly identify themselves with this position, very clearly, by using such terms as n***** and clearly stating that other races should face private and legal repression.

    Simply opposing the end of segregation on Constitutionalist grounds or defending the right of the Confederacy to break away and it having nothing to do with slavery or continually embracing weak nimrods with shoddy statistics who periodically come out with studies claiming black people are dumb does not make one racist.

    Racists are people like David Duke, not people who say that they never would have passed the Civil (and presumably Voting) Rights Act because states were doing just fine on integration, businesses would eventually integrate because of market incentives, and if this took 100 or 1,000 years, too bad.

  107. 107.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @TomG: TomG, it’s not that some people here don’t want govt to stay the hell out of their private life, or otherwise be seriously pulled back in power and scope. I do! I do so agree with that.
    And I want adult humans to have the choice to determine their path in life, as long as that doesn’t mess up someone else’s path.
    But in my existence, every single time I have tried to understand the philosophy, and I have tried, it all comes down to a set of immutable, unworkable fantasy.
    And I am not a political pragmatist.

  108. 108.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @MoeLarryAndJesus:

    Paul’s stance is shared by more conservatives than you might think. I’ve heard variations on it many times over the years.

    If you ask one of these numbskulls about a scenario where a black family is traveling in the boonies and has a car break down and the only hotel in the area is Whites Only, they’ll just shrug and mumble some crap about how “the market” would take care of it. Or they’d just have to sleep in the car, or maybe find a frigging manger.

    Exactly. I finally just stopped arguing with those types over at Townhall.com. They won’t be happy unless we have an 1850’sLondon style social nightmare where the privileged have their occasional charity functions and everyone else lives in perpetual squalor…because the free market is more important than any other human consideration.

    I was astonished to find so many people that wanted to repeal the minimum wage, abolish public schooling and abolish any and all civil rights acts and hate crime laws.

  109. 109.

    MoeLarryAndJesus

    May 20, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    So how long before Reason starts banging the drums for a national holiday honoring Bull Connor?

  110. 110.

    Brien Jackson

    May 20, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    @Dannie22:

    Someone who believes one race is inherently superior to another in some way, or who hates entire groups of people based on race. I’m not sure this tells us anything about Paul’s views on race, any more than my acknowledging that the first amendment gives everyone the right to say racist things if they want to makes me a racist. I certainly don’t think it’s exculpatory though, I’m just not sure you can draw any conclusions from it. Paul, and libertarians like him, havea very warped view of freedom and economics. Plenty of racists are drawn into this because it provides space for their racism, to be sure, but I don’t think literally everyone who holds those libertarian ideas are racists. Just dumb.

  111. 111.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    @TomG:

    Okay. I’ll just throw this out there – you all are loving yet another opportunity to laugh at those stupid crazy libertarians…
    Is there ANYTHING we believe in that you agree with ?

    Your entire worldview is an inapplicable, callous, impractical joke. If we were having a serious discussion about solutions to fix real problems, I would not want someone with that kind of worldview to even get an invitation to a seat at the fucking table.

    Let me ask you this. Do you agree with Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act?

    @TomG:

    Or don’t you have any idea what we believe in aside from what Rand Paul and Reason magazine discuss ?

    Why don’t you throw out one of those ideas and we can talk about it. No reason to hold on to it if it’s so awesome and game-changing, right?

  112. 112.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @Comrade Colette Collaboratrice: Again, Ronald Reagan was not a racist — he just wanted to stir up racists and get their votes from talking about strapping young bucks buying steaks with welfare money. It’s totally different. Some hick who says he hates n****** is far, far worse than a political candidate who wants to stir up racism to get elected so he can enact programs to further enrich the already super-rich and slash programs aiding the poorest. Don’t you dare suggest Ronald Reagan was a racist, that’s totally inappropriate.

  113. 113.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @JGabriel:

    The problem is that government is involved either way: to enforce the restaurant’s discriminatory policy, the police may need to be called in to remove a black patron for trespassing.

    What’s more, this isn’t a matter of loony libertarian theorizing; it’s exactly what the situation was before, as Rand Paul would claim, the Federal Government “overreached” and put an end to it!

    Need I add that the police weren’t always exactly gentle in enforcing those laws? I thought not.

  114. 114.

    Brien Jackson

    May 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    @TomG:

    Is there ANYTHING we believe in that you agree with ?

    Probably.

    Would you ever take any libertarian seriously to try and arrive at common ground?

    No.

  115. 115.

    Nimm

    May 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    @TomG:

    Is there ANYTHING we believe in that you agree with ?

    Well, since you’ve said in the same breath that we don’t understand libertarianism, we can’t really answer that, can we?

    Back in college, when I didn’t know any better, I used to call myself a libertarian and vote for libertarian candidates. (Andre Marrou 4EVA!). I thought libertarianism had a lot to do with civil liberties. Things like separation of church and state, limits on police powers and zealously protecting the fourth and fifth amendments, taking victimless crimes off the books…that sort of thing.

    So – do you all believe in that? Because all I usually hear about these days is cutting taxes and slashing social welfare programs. Kinda hard to distinguish from generic Republicanism.

  116. 116.

    seabe

    May 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    John, his comments the other day at the country club clearly show his racist tendencies:

    “I think at one time people used to think of golf and golf courses and golf clubs as being exclusive. But I think in recent years now you see a lot of people playing golf. I think Tiger Woods has helped to broaden that in the sense that he’s brought golf to a lot of the cities and to city youth, and so no, I don’t think it’s nearly as exclusive as people once considered it to be.”

    City youth?

  117. 117.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    @Eric S.:

    Where do you live? The only place I’ve seen the crossing walk audio signals were in Toronto. We don’t have them here in the Windy City.

    They are all over Houston and the Greater Houston Metro Area as well.
    It kind of messes with me a little because normally I just hear organ music in my head. So when they start rhythmically beeping it disrupts what the organist is trying to tell me to do next.

  118. 118.

    Brachiator

    May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    I watched the videos of Paul yesterday, and as DougJ noted, there is a full-on village freak-out going on. But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

    In my little corner of the universe, life is kinda simple sometimes. If Paul has a nut about “liberty” that just happens to focus on nonwhites and how segregation just might be OK Fine for private businesses, then of course he’s a racist.
    Jebus Christ.

    It’s interesting that libertarians rarely say that they would be happy to do business with non-whites and would only associate with 100% racism free libertarians. Instead, it’s always about some weirdly abstract notion of liberty in which everything is OK as long as it’s the other guy who gets kicked in the ass.

    What makes Paul and his libertarian ilk even more despicable is that they would happily live in a world where no nonwhite would ever have recourse to redress private discrimination. So a store could refuse to sell food to nonwhites, and doctors could refuse to treat them. And so, nonwhites would have a perfect liberty interest to go off in a corner and die, and should be happy that they have the right to do so.

  119. 119.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    I know it’s a shock, but libertarians aren’t the only people on Earth who have ever concerned themselves with liberty and freedom from oppression — they just grant themselves exclusively the authority to define what oppression is and isn’t, because, well SHUT UP.

  120. 120.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    @Dannie22:

    I didn’t read the whole thread so it’s possible that someone already answered this question. But I’m gonna ask anyway: what do white folks call racist? John Cole doesn’t believe Rand is racist he just doesn’t believe in civil rights. I strongly believe Rand is as racist as Strom Thurmond.

    I didn’t come away from watching his (cringe worthy) interview with maddow last night thinking he was a racist.

    I am reminded more of the quote “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

  121. 121.

    phoebes-in-santa fe

    May 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    @rob!: Go to actblue.com and then to States and Offices. Though I think Conway was listed in their “Hot races” on the front page of the site. At least he was when I donated to him yesterday.

  122. 122.

    artem1s

    May 20, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    You cannot say in one breath that discrimination is wrong and minorities should have the right to sit at the lunch counter and that you would condemn any business who engaged in such activity; and then in the very next breath, say that you oppose legislation to enforce those rights.

    spot on! The ONLY way you can dismiss the enforcement side of the equation is if you forget that the Constitution also GUARANTEES the right for citizens to petition their government for redress of wrongs. But Mr. Rand doesn’t believe everyone is entitled to THAT right.

    Rand can’t even conceive of a situation where a minority’s business would be constrained from the freedom to choose who serve or where it can exist because HE ONLY IMAGINES WHITE MALE OWNERS! How can you say in one breath that discrimination is bad and then imply that being denied the right to even HAVE a business isn’t a violation of his apologist argument in favor of letting bigots continue to ALWAYS maintain the upper hand in all business dealings.

    He himself says that dealings with the Federal government should be discrimination free. He then goes on to paint the CRA as an assault on PRIVATE businesses who just want to be left alone to serve their own kind.

    The truth is that the CRA had to be enacted in part to force Jim Crow states to do business with minorities, whether that involved hiring, government contracts, or where they were allowed to go to school or place their businesses. If your main political theory is that there shouldn’t be anything BUT private businesses what does it cost you, politically, to admit that the fed shouldn’t discriminate. Let’s not pretend that this was not going on before the CRA.

    I find this insistence that Rand is some naive idealist frankly bewildering. He isn’t a simpleton. He is not speaking in code. He is letting his supporters know that if he is elected he will do everything in his power to make sure that the right people will have the power to behave in any way that they please. He is issuing a manifesto that supports the return to Jim Crow laws. period.

    he is a bigot. get over it.

  123. 123.

    Mark S.

    May 20, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Sully:

    What I believe was a necessary act to redress a uniquely American historic evil became a baseline for every minority group with a claim to grievance.

    Jesus, does this man have an ounce of self-awareness? Would he perhaps complain if a property owner refused to sell him a house on account of his homosexuality? Would he be okay with restaurants having signs saying “We reserve the right to not serve gays”?

  124. 124.

    matoko_chan

    May 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    But I think it is unfair

    lawl, he scammed you Cole….again, Paul can’t be a libertatrian if hes antichoice. Therefore, his principles supporting discrimination are racist, not libertarian.
    @jl: trudat.
    The founders and framers intended a tension between radical change and the status quo, which means they were ALL living-constitution fans.
    They didnt want zero change….they wanted cautious change.

  125. 125.

    KG

    May 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    As a libertarian, I recognize that there are inherent flaws in the ideology. The biggest problem is that, at its core, it is utopian and too many adherents are utopian in their thinking. Libertarianism, at the base level, really only works if people are on equal footing when it comes to information and resources. A lot of libertarians don’t understand that many people don’t have access to the resources or information (or money) that others do; or that unequal bargaining positions are inherent in so many of our contracts (there’s a whole area of contract law known as adhesive contracts that will likely be getting a lot of attention in the coming years).

    A great example is in employment contracts (full disclosure, I just did some work on a case in this area): an employer can require employees (or even applicants) to sign an arbitration agreement relating to their employment, and it’s offered as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition; either you sign the arbitration agreement or you don’t have a job (or interview). The problem is, the whole idea of arbitration being acceptable is based on the voluntariliness of the arbitration agreement.

    The other problem a lot of my libertarian friend have is that they think only the federal government is capable of being oppressive. Of course, our history shows that the state governments have tended to be much more oppressive than the federal government.

  126. 126.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @Brien Jackson:

    I’m not sure this tells us anything about Paul’s views on race, any more than my acknowledging that the first amendment gives everyone the right to say racist things if they want to makes me a racist.

    You know what it tells us?

    “Hey, minorities. Your rights are not as important as the Free Market and this other guy’s (who is most likely white, let’s not kid ourselves) property. And no, you cannot ask the government to intervene in your favor.”

    What world are people living in that this is not an extremely revealing insight into how Rand Paul views minorities? I mean…really?!

    This is just fucking stunning to me.

  127. 127.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    @TomG:

    don’t you have any idea what we believe in aside from what Rand Paul and Reason magazine discuss ?

    Thanks to a zillion comment posts on the Internet by rugged individualists like yourself (who so often whine when their ridiculous worldview gets the derision it deserves), yeah, pretty much.

  128. 128.

    Jules

    May 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    Rand Paul in 2002:

    In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul’s hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that “a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.” (Hat tip: Page One Kentucky.)

  129. 129.

    Tsulagi

    May 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist…What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology.

    Sounds about right.

    While there is some buzz now about Paul’s position/statements, on balance think it will be a net plus for him in the KY general. When it dies down condensed take home version for those voters could easily be Paul thinks racial discrimination is bad and should be eliminated from public institutions, but federal (fucking Yankees) intervention upon private business is bad also too. That coupled with teabagger perpetual paranoia they, and now Paul on this issue, are under attack and victimized by the elite liberal media.

    At this point, think the only way he gets a negative hit among KY voters is if he walks it back too much. Teabaggers love their loons.

  130. 130.

    neil

    May 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    He’s probably not a racist. He just doesn’t care about racism.

    Libertarians who don’t care about institutionalized racism are not really libertarians, they just don’t want the government to insert itself in anything that matters to them.

  131. 131.

    MoZeu

    May 20, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Ron Paul’s idiocy can be exposed in five simple words: The Sanctity of Life Act.

    Any asshat who can sit there with a straight face and claim to be a small-government libertarian that wants the federal government to stay out of people’s day to day lives, while at the same time calling for that same federal government to pass a law declaring that human life begins at conception (and thereby making abortion a felony in every and all instances) is either a hypocrite of the highest order or a drooling idiot. Quite likely both.

  132. 132.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    @Midnight Marauder:

    You ought to read Sullivan’s essay in its entirety again. Pay attention to this part:

    Worse, Paul’s entirely abstract intellectual argument wrests pure principles out of an actual society, with actual historical atrocities, violence, oppression and contempt. That’s why I cannot be a libertarian the way some others like Paul are. I do not believe you can reify an abstraction like liberty and separate it from the context – historical, cultural, moral – in which it lives and breathes and from which it emerged. I can believe in freedom and believe in equality of opportunity but I should be mature enough to see when there has to be a compromise between the two – and decide. On the issue of race in America, the libertarian right was proven wrong – morally, empirically wrong. Giving up the ancient and real freedom to discriminate was worth it – indeed morally and politically necessary for America to regain its soul.

  133. 133.

    freelancer

    May 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Paul’s views are ridiculous and myopic as all hell. He talks about the freedom for business being his concern. If he were talking about this within the context of the 1st Amendment and it being a speech issue, I would have no quarrel with his argument. I’m with Voltaire in that free speech, no matter how repugnant, should be protected and defended. However Rand’s context is within the framework of laws enacted that he considered stripping racists of their right to be racist activists. This says nothing about the big government mandates of Jim Crow laws and their tyrrany that dictated what businesses could or could not do along the lines of race, as Sullivan points out.

    The Pauls seem to concede to the validity of the Act’s overturning of discrimination in public settings, such as transportation. But why aren’t they — as libertarians — outraged that Jim Crow laws themselves infringed on private property and free exchange of goods? Jim Crow said whites and blacks couldn’t eat together or live in the same hotels. If you were a white restaurant owner and wanted to serve blacks, you could be shut down. Once again, Jim Crow prevented whites and blacks from engaging in a basic economic relationship. That is the power of the state at its worst.

    Being against the right bill for the wrong reasons in this case, to me, is absolutely no different than the religious right when they whinge about religious freedom being trampled on by anti-discrimination laws that combat homophobia.

    “Gubmint can’t restrict my right to have my boot on the neck of homos and their insidious agenda.”

    Fuck you, you’re a bigot.

    “I agree with the sentiment, but I’m just looking out for the rights of American business owners to run their institutions the way they want to. (Nevermind that I’m completely ignoring the glaring history of violence and intimidation that took decades to overcome with the blood and bravery of true patriots who just wanted the same freedom and equality I profess to want to protect.)”

    Fuck you, you’re a bigot.

  134. 134.

    geg6

    May 20, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    @TomG:

    Well, I don’t think pot should be illegal.

    Other than that, libertarianism is a total joke of philosophy and I’d be embarrassed to call myself one.

    SATSQ

  135. 135.

    sneezy

    May 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    @bloodstar:

    “He’s not a libertarian, he’s a constitutionalist for frak’s sake.”

    That is, he’s not one particular kind of idiotic douchebag, he’s a different kind of idiotic douchebag. It’s a big difference!

  136. 136.

    Lane

    May 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    well said, John.

    I work with a randidte who thinks that killing puppies on his own time is Ok.

    Really, I am not making that up.

    He phrased it as: if you heard a live puppy being skinned on an island, should, you stop it?
    His answer, NO. Killen puppies is ok; if it’s not mandated.

    Humanity or get a grip?

  137. 137.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    But I think it is unfair to tar Paul as racist, because I don’t think anything in those videos gives me any ideas into his personal opinion about people of color. If anything, in that regard, they would seem to me to be exculpatory as regards to any charge of racism.

    Whenever I hear how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a libertarian to be a racist because racism is a “collectivist trait” I vomit in my mouth a little.

    Anyone who abuses the phrase “States rights”, believes that the CRA was a bad idea, and believes that business owners should be judged by the free market alone for segregation is a racist, no matter how many black friends they have.

  138. 138.

    Mnemosyne

    May 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I’ll kinda-sorta defend DougJ and John Cole here. Like it or not, using the word “racist” does cause a lot of white people’s brains to shut down and decide that it’s all just name-calling that can be ignored.

    By saying that we don’t know whether or not Paul is personally racist but that his beliefs lead directly to unequal outcomes, it prevents us from getting bogged down in the stupid “nuh-uh!” “uh-huh!” “nuh-uh!” back-and-forth that goes along with that word. Not only that, but it also points out that whether or not Paul is personally racist doesn’t matter if the policies he supports lead to discriminatory outcomes.

    It’s not about what’s in his heart. I couldn’t give a shit about what’s in his heart. What it’s about is that he supports bad policies. I don’t care why he does, but he does, and that’s what we need to be talking about, not getting bogged down in figuring out whether or not Paul touts those policies because he personally hates minorities.

    In some ways, to me it’s actually worse if he’s not personally racist but has no problem allowing people to discriminate against others so he can stay true to his abstract philosophy that’s completely useless in the real world. We really don’t need an American Robespierre running things.

  139. 139.

    Fergus Wooster

    May 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    @KG:

    Of course, our history shows that the state governments have tended to be much more oppressive than the federal government.

    The Pauls are a unique strand of Libertarian though (thus the “Constitutionalist” protestation earlier in the thread). They believe the state governments should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want to minorities – it is only the Federal government which is restricted.

    They’re all for tyranny-of-the-majority and church-state interaction at the State level. In some ways they’re more states’-rights crypto-Confederate than Libertarian per se.

  140. 140.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    @maus:

    Anytime I hear how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a libertarian to be a racist because racism is a “collectivist trait” I vomit in my mouth a little.

    Who in the hell tried to shill that bit of nonsense? A collectivist trait?

  141. 141.

    Michael D.

    May 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    @celticdragonchick: While I agree with everything Midnight Marauder has written here today ,please understand that actually reading what Andrew Sullivan writes instead of just cherry picking quotes is not exactly a requirement in these here parts.

  142. 142.

    Fergus Wooster

    May 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    @maus:

    Anyone who abuses the phrase “States rights”, believes that the CRA was a bad idea, and believes that business owners should be judged by the free market alone for segregation is a racist, no matter how many black friends they have.

    This. I’m gonna steal this.

  143. 143.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    @celticdragonchick:

    You ought to read Sullivan’s essay in its entirety again.

    @Michael D.:

    While I agree with everything Midnight Marauder has written here today ,please understand that actually reading what Andrew Sullivan writes instead of just cherry picking quotes is not exactly a requirement in these here parts.

    I am familiar with the portion you cited, celticdragonchick. You will note, however, that his post is entitled:

    A Defense of Rand Paul (Kinda)

    It’s standard fare for Sullivan. And it’s fucking gross.

  144. 144.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    In some ways, to me it’s actually worse if he’s not personally racist but has no problem allowing people to discriminate against others so he can stay true to his abstract philosophy that’s completely useless in the real world. We really don’t need an American Robespierre running things.

    I, for one, welcome the coming of The Great Terror and the nifty chance to educate children in readin’, writtin’,an’ ‘rithmatic by way of observing how many heads come down from the guillotine scaffold each day.

  145. 145.

    Gregory

    May 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s not about what’s in his heart. I couldn’t give a shit about what’s in his heart. What it’s about is that he supports bad policies.

    Word.

    And for that matter, I’d like to see Paul’s embarrassing candor taken as an opportunity to apply that logic to Republicans even more in our national discourse. (And, yes, I’d also like a pony.)

    The GOP often goes after Democrats for their motives — look at the vitriol directed against Obama — and the reason is that GOP policies — once you get beyond the vague “freedom and low taxes” bullshit — suck and are deservedly unpopular, and they’d rather not talk about them.

    Rand Paul obviously didn’t want to talk candidly about his views to Maddow last night. All the more reason he — and the GOP writ large — should have their feet held to the fire.

  146. 146.

    KG

    May 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    @Fergus Wooster: point taken; they are obviously not fans of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  147. 147.

    numbskull

    May 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    @TomG: WTF, TomG? We’re not laughing at you stupid crazies. Does this look like laughing? We’re pissed that you’re still around breathing good air and pollutin’ the joint with your bodily fumes and failed 18th century navel gazing.

    But aside from Rand, Ron, Reason, Barry Goldwater (in his younger days), Ayn and all the other assorted stupid crazies, why would we POSSIBLY think that Libertarians are stupid and crazy? I mean, BOTH of the other two Libertarians make so much sense. LaRouche and what’s-his-name…

    Kidding aside, I think many people want minimal government intervention in their lives and in the lives of others. But that’s like saying you’re for Mom and apple pie and against killing cute kitties. It’s when you get to the real-world issues that libertarianism breaks down. There are some excellent examples of scenarios here in this thread, one of the better ones being:

    Let’s say that the government cannot force a restaurant owner to serve an African American. That means that the government MUST enforce discrimination, because if an African American refuses to leave a Cracker Barrel, the owner can call the police to have the guy tossed just for not being white. Not for carrying a gun, not for making a disturbance, not for anything except for being black.

    Now, the guy’s out in street and hungry, even though he has money to buy food. OK, he walks down the street to Quick-Trip to buy a freakin’ bag of potato chips, walks in, grabs a bag, walks up to the counter with chips and cash in hand, and Whoops! He’s got too much melanin. Owner calls the cops, dude’s thrown back on to the street, still hungry and probably lucky to have not taken a beating.

    And since this is a small town, the guy with too much melanin is shit-out-of-luck ’cause Cracker Barrel and Quick-Trip is it, bub. And even though he is a citizen with money in his pocket to buy food, all he can do is hope he can make it to the next town before he collapses from hunger.

    Seems sort of stupid and crazy to me, TomG. And if you were old enough and lived in the South back then, you’d know that this is not a hypothetical scenario.

  148. 148.

    The Moar You Know

    May 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    __Paul’s position that he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act is a principled stance. And that principle can be succinctly stated: property rights take precedence over human rights.

    @Short Bus Bully: Awesome. Really says it all about both of the Pauls, and libertarianism in general.

  149. 149.

    Chuckles

    May 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    This current flavor of “libertarianism” is giving us anarchists a bad name.

    Anarchism is a political theory. What passes for libertarianism these days is an ideology. The difference? “Theory” means you have ideas. “Ideology” means that ideas have you.

    To those who conflate the two, I suggest you investigate the difference between what’s is currently fobbed off as “libertarianism” – actually “libertarian conservatism” – and “libertarian socialism,” which is a handy stand-in for “anarchism.” True libertarianism has ZERO tolerance for any hierarchical relationships: “No gods, no masters.” Running for public office is complete anathema to a true libertarian.

    Rand Paul is no “libertarian.” He is a hard-right ideologue and should be treated as such.

  150. 150.

    Mnemosyne

    May 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    @El Cid:

    Some hick who says he hates n****** is far, far worse than a political candidate who wants to stir up racism to get elected so he can enact programs to further enrich the already super-rich and slash programs aiding the poorest.

    I know you’re being sarcastic, but I do think the person who isn’t personally a racist but touts racist policies to enrich himself and his friends is a much worse person than the one who actively spouts the bullshit in public or private.

    Results matter more than emotion, which is why I don’t care what people “really” feel if their results end in people being discriminated against.

    Bigots keep being able to make opposition to racism and bigotry into a debate over feelings and beliefs when it’s actually a debate over rights and citizenship. We need to pull that rug out from under them and point out that feelings shouldn’t enter into the debate at all, so their argument that they personally don’t “feel” like they’re discriminating against anyone doesn’t mean shit if their actions are discriminatory.

  151. 151.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    @celticdragonchick: It’s technically his dad’s claim, but I’m fairly certain it’ll come out in Rand’s defense as well.

    http://thesuperspade.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/ron-pauls-philosophy-a-libertarian-cant-be-a-racist/

    @KG:

    I’m for the most part ok with a number of small-l ideas, because they can be incorporated into progressive beliefs and tempered by reality. We can have more productive squabbling about methods to reach both our end-goals.

  152. 152.

    kay

    May 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    @Jules:

    It’s a nifty philosophy, but the problem with libertarians is people. People are going to insist on renting houses in their neighborhood. Tough shit. That’s just how people are.

    Then the libertarians have to call in the dreaded state police force, and now the state’s involved, and it’s institutionalized racism.

    On another note, doesn’t this man have school-age children? Does he live in the world, or does his wife handle worldly duties? How are those children supposed to exercise their RIGHT to attend any public school if they can’t buy a house in the neighborhood?

    That’s what happened. Actually. In the world. Not that long ago.

    I swear to God, are they just dumb as rocks? No one wanted to address racism. It certainly wasn’t a POLITICAL winner. They did it because the Rand Paul Theory of the Universe doesn’t work.

    It will never work. We tried it. Big, fat failure.

  153. 153.

    D-Chance.

    May 20, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Seriously, is this all there is to discuss? The libertarian views of some junior senatorial candidate who hasn’t even been elected to office yet from some insignificant state?

    Oil is now infiltrating our wetlands while O-boy is sitting around with his thumb up his ass. We’ve hit the 1,000 milestone in troop deaths in O-boy’s continuing little escapade in Afghanistan. The stock market is plunging and in full “double dip” mode (glad to see the stimulus working so well, and, to those of you still in the market, why?). Unemployment and underemployment is still the reality of 1/5th of the workforce.

    But, hey… if this shiny new little bauble named “Rand” is the way to keep the children’s attention diverted from having to work on the real adult problems the nation is seemingly unwilling and unable to face… let the nation go belly-up. Quite frankly, it’s been to good of a country for the inhabitants occupying it. Fuck ’em all.

  154. 154.

    Midnight Marauder

    May 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Seriously, is this all there is to discuss? The libertarian views of some junior senatorial candidate who hasn’t even been elected to office yet from some insignificant state?

    It’s a big internet. You can move the fuck on if you don’t like it.

  155. 155.

    JGabriel

    May 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    matoko_chan:

    The founders and framers intended a tension between radical change and the status quo, which means they were ALL living-constitution fans.

    Yes, one would think the originalist interpretation of the Constitution can be easily countered with the simple question: Why does the Constitution include an amendment process?

    .

  156. 156.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Seriously, is this all there is to discuss?

    No, there’s a whole big world out there.

    But that’s what this thread is about, specifically.

    Quite frankly, it’s been to good of a country for the inhabitants occupying it. Fuck ‘em all.

    It also generally helps if you bring up the topic to discuss seriously instead of stamping your feet and calling everyone stupid. Perhaps you should post this in one of the threads that exist to discuss

    Oil is now infiltrating our wetlands while O-boy is sitting around with his thumb up his ass

    You may find more discussion about that topic in those threads!

  157. 157.

    Redshirt

    May 20, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    We’re fighting a war against the forces of ignorance and oppression – they’ve known its a war for many decades; when will the side of Good realize the same?

  158. 158.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @maus:

    Paul may not be a racist, but to claim that one’s political philosophy makes you immune to racism is fallacious. Paul’s argument is tantamount to a white person saying, “I can’t be racist because I have black friends.”

    Wow. I hadn’t come across that bit of, ahem, faulty reasoning before.

    It appears to be the flip side of this:

    Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not ”racist” because racism involves systemic oppression — the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it’s beyond their ability to be racist.

    http://www.racematters.org/blackslackpowertoberacists.htm

    Both exhibit a form of “No true Scotsman” and selectively redefining the meaning of racism as to beg the question.

  159. 159.

    Fergus Wooster

    May 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @KG:

    they are obviously not fans of the Fourteenth Amendment

    Something I read by Scott Horton makes me wonder if they’re even fans of the 1789 version of the Constitution. He noted that Jeff Sessions had some erroneous conceptions of the US Constitution, but that oddly all of his arguments are in sync with the Confederate constitution.

    Which is, oddly enough, much like the US version, only minus the “promote the general welfare” line and minus the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    I think the Pauls like to pretend that’s the document that governs us.

  160. 160.

    Zifnab

    May 20, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @El Cid: Distinction without a difference.

    There is a second definition of racism:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

    A racist is one who knowingly supports a policy that renders one or more groups of individuals – based on their race or ethnicity – inferior under law.

    If Rand Paul supports a policy that results in segregation or Jim Crow laws or poll taxes or any of the assorted wrongs perpetrated by state governments against their citizenry, he’s a flip’n racist. No matter how many hoops he jumps through. No matter how far around the bend he runs to escape the title. No matter how far he has to twist an ideology to fit his needs.

    If the results of his policy are 1950s Alabama, he’s a fucking racist.

  161. 161.

    Gus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    @matoko_chan: Yeah, except arguments about what the Constitution allows are as old as the fucking Constitution. Jefferson and Adams were arguing about that shit for fuck’s sake.

  162. 162.

    freelancer

    May 20, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Oil is now infiltrating our wetlands while O-boy is sitting around with his thumb up his ass.

    Obama should plug the leak with his bully pulpit.

    We’ve hit the 1,000 milestone in troop deaths in O-boy’s continuing little escapade in Afghanistan.

    Such a black and white issue eh? What do we do next General? What’s the plan?

    The stock market is plunging and in full “double dip” mode (glad to see the stimulus working so well, and, to those of you still in the market, why?).

    The stimulus has worked, and tying it to the DOW is a misrepresentation of its aim.

    Unemployment and underemployment is still the reality of 1/5th of the workforce.

    O-boys fault. Surely.

    ——–

    You’re like a game of Logical Fallacy Mad-libs. Fuck off.

  163. 163.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Seriously, is this all there is to discuss? The libertarian views of some junior senatorial candidate who hasn’t even been elected to office yet from some insignificant state?

    Then take up your sword and start your own blog to write about the things you want to discuss.

  164. 164.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @Zifnab: That was sarcasm. Sorry, guess it wasn’t clear.

  165. 165.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @Fergus Wooster:

    Something I read by Scott Horton makes me wonder if they’re even fans of the 1789 version of the Constitution. He noted that Jeff Sessions had some erroneous conceptions of the US Constitution, but that oddly all of his arguments are in sync with the Confederate constitution.

    Which is, oddly enough, much like the US version, only minus the “promote the general welfare” line and minus the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    Bingo!

  166. 166.

    toujoursdan

    May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Now the response to the oil spill and Afghanistan are Obama’s fault? Did he cause the spill or start the war?

    ROFL. Shit.

  167. 167.

    charlequin

    May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @TomG: Inasmuch as we are talking about big-L Libertarianism (the minarchist ethos of absolute property rights) then no, not really. (Inasmuch as we are talking about small-l libertarianism there’s quite a bit to say for it, but for the benefits of that I’d really rather just talk to any of the numerous left-wing-civil-libertarians.)

    Also:

    @Brien Jackson:

    I’m not sure this tells us anything about Paul’s views on race, any more than my acknowledging that the first amendment gives everyone the right to say racist things if they want to makes me a racist. I certainly don’t think it’s exculpatory though, I’m just not sure you can draw any conclusions from it. Paul, and libertarians like him, havea very warped view of freedom and economics. Plenty of racists are drawn into this because it provides space for their racism, to be sure, but I don’t think literally everyone who holds those libertarian ideas are racists. Just dumb.

    This is why the focus on who “is” or “is not” a racist is fundamentally a self-defeating approach. One cannot know another’s heart (no matter how much inference one might draw about it), which means that it is incredibly easy to defend against allegations of racism by claiming not to be — how’s someone going to prove that you really hate non-whites, really?

    That’s why it’s important to focus on the facts on the ground. It’s not that it’s unfair to call Rand a racist, it’s just besides the point — his policies will have horrible effects on the lives of non-whites. Whether he himself is a bad person or an idiot isn’t necessarily relevant (and I say we let him pick which one he’d prefer to be) because his ideas are unacceptably bad.

  168. 168.

    Comrade Luke

    May 20, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    @KG:

    A lot of libertarians don’t understand that many people don’t have access to the resources or information (or money) that others do; or that unequal bargaining positions are inherent in so many of our contracts (there’s a whole area of contract law known as adhesive contracts that will likely be getting a lot of attention in the coming years).

    They don’t? They don’t realize other people don’t have the same access to resources as they do? If that’s true…well, wtf planet are they living on?

    I’m not really all that serious in my question. I believe you.

    In my (thankfully) limited exposure to libertarians, the constant seems to be a total self-centeredness and selfishness, and the belief that their life and lifestyle is OF COURSE the way everyone lives and OF COURSE they did it all on their own. In addition, they almost universally haven’t studied how the real world and government work and what they provide, so it takes about five minutes of discussion before they run out of logical thoughts and everything gets distilled down to “Get Big Government Out Of My Life”.

    I mean, fer fuck’s sake, one of my best friends is a libertarian. He lives up in the woods (like 3mi off a main road), and while he rails against government, having to get permits for building, etc, he’s completely oblivious to the fact that he has a road that leads up there, electricity, running water and CABLE for fuck’s sake.

    Completely. Oblivious.

    And btw, the thinly veiled racism is there too. You see, since he’s lived his life a certain way (forgetting how much of what he’s achieved was due to be a white male in america with a family that could afford to put him through college without any aid), that means that anyone that’s suffering is doing so out of their own careless neglect and laziness.

    These fucking people fail to see that a rising tide lifts all boats. They look at people on the shore and yell “Swim, you lazy motherfuckers! What’s the matter with you! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did!”, conveniently neglecting the fact that they were born on a yacht offshore.

  169. 169.

    taylormattd

    May 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    @El Cid: Win. Perfect summary of this entire stupid line of speculation.

  170. 170.

    Cat Lady

    May 20, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    What’s stopping you from offering O-boy the use of yourself to plug the hole? Your self perception appears to be big enough to do the job.

    Go on, go. Be a hero.

  171. 171.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    @JGabriel: For that matter, why does the Constitution provide for a legislative branch at all? If the Constitution contains the complete and clear code for everything we would ever need to do, don’t you just need an Executive to enforce the Constitution and a Judicial branch to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional? Why would we need to pass ‘laws’ given that a Constitution can tell everyone every last thing they ever need to do or not do?

  172. 172.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    @celticdragonchick: No true Klansman?

  173. 173.

    JGabriel

    May 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    D-Chance.:

    Unemployment and underemployment is still the reality of 1/5th of the workforce.

    More like 1/6, actually – UE6 was about 17% last I checked. But close enough for internet trolling, I suppose.

    .

  174. 174.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    @celticdragonchick: Also while you’re at it, destroy the establishment media and put in place a new media that will discuss things outside of the corporatist model. That would be pretty much the only way to keep people from being distracted by new events when the establishment is “finished” talking about the pesky economy, or pesky environment, or whatever is good for a half-hour of the 24 hour cycle before it becomes stale.

    @Comrade Luke: “white privilege” is impossible under libertarianism because blah blah blah blah blah fuck you i’ve got mine.

  175. 175.

    themann1086

    May 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Hah, took me a while to find this… from Libertarianism Makes You Stupid:

    One of the seamiest and ugliest aspects of Libertarianism is its support of turning back the civil-rights clock to pre-1964 legal situation for businesses. “I am not making this up”. They’re very explicit about it [examples removed due to length]

    That’s “rights” according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, “No Jews or dogs” hotels, “we don’t serve your kind here”, “No Irish need apply”, “This is man’s job”, etc. All this is a “right of association” in Libertarian theology.

    Such a weird position is not just the purview of some position-writers in a corner, but a surprisingly common trait of Libertarians. It’s one of the surest way of identifying one, if they justify such a reactionary position from abstract considerations.

    It must be stressed that a) Libertarians ARE NOT racists, sexists, etc. and b) The above is not meant to comment either way on the much more controversial affirmative-action debate. Libertarians can go to town whenever they’re called racist, sexist, and so on for the above (gee, how could anyone ever get that idea?), proclaiming their great personal but private commitment to equality. Of course, they never have to do anything much in this regard since events have passed them by. But they want make sure you know they fully support the ideals, even if they think the all the past decades legal effort should be repealed as immoral and unprincipled. They also love to switch the debate the affirmative action, because that’s far more contentious than anti-discrimination. But the position’s very plain. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be “initiation of force”, allowing relation of force to eject the malefactor.

    As the kids say, read the whole thing.

  176. 176.

    taylormattd

    May 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    @Zifnab: El Cid was being sarcastic. He agrees with you.

  177. 177.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @themann1086:

    Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be “initiation of force”, allowing relation of force to eject the malefactor.

    Or, with Castle Doctrine, you could just shoot them on your property. Or, if nobody’s looking, drag them onto your land and shoot them. PROPERTEE WHITES

  178. 178.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @El Cid:

    LMAO!

    Well done!

    On the subject of Scotsmen, I have to say that one of my real per peeves is seeing the Stars and Bars at some Scottish clan tents at Highland Games. That damned flag has nothing to do with Scotland and does not belong at a Scottish event. If you want to be a rebel, fly the Rampant Lion of the House of Stuart.

    I have seen a number of people of color who have married into a Scottish American family or play in pipe bands and wear the kilt or kilted skirt and tartan sash with pride. I am embarrassed when I see a flag that symbolizes hate and division being flown at a time when they should be made to welcome above all else.

  179. 179.

    kay

    May 20, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Wall Street says the stock market is falling because of uncertainty in Europe, and because they don’t know how Congress plans to regulate them.
    That means they want another bail-out, but they don’t want any consequences for taking another one, so it’s pretty much business as usual, don’t you think?

  180. 180.

    Karmakin

    May 20, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    @JGabriel: To be fair, you could just keep the government out of it entirely, and stop protecting private property.

    So if you have some “trespassers”. Well, take care of it yourself. Come to some sort of compromise. But no libertarians actually want well..liberty. They want feudalism.

  181. 181.

    charlequin

    May 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @Mnemosyne: I see you beat me to exactly this:

    It’s not about what’s in his heart. I couldn’t give a shit about what’s in his heart. What it’s about is that he supports bad policies.

    It’s really completely irrelevant whether he likes black people or not; what matters is that his ideas are fucking terrible because of the negative effect they would have on people.

  182. 182.

    Joe Lisboa

    May 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @Gregory: THIS. THIS. THIS!

  183. 183.

    You Don't Say

    May 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @Midnight Marauder: What you said. Racist or not in his heart, the result of his policy ideas is racism as well as idiocy.

    But leaving racism aside, where does Paul’s policy exempting private enterprise from government regulation end, if it does end? Will we have restaurant inspections? Or does someone have to eat the week-old chicken at Wally’s Diner and die so I can find out to not patronize the place? Or is that OK because it is local government writing the regs and doing the inspections?

  184. 184.

    JGabriel

    May 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    @neil:

    He’s probably not a racist. He just doesn’t care about racism.

    This is the distinction between racist and racially insensitive. Paul the Younger would appear to be the latter, though legislatively there’s practically no distinction.

    .

  185. 185.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    @You Don’t Say:

    Will we have restaurant inspections? Or does someone have to eat the week-old chicken at Wally’s Diner and die so I can find out to not patronize the place? Or is that OK because it is local government writing the regs and doing the inspections?

    A twenty year old idiot with a column at Townhall.com proposed exactly that…but with the airline industry.

    See, if the airlines cut too many corners and kill a bunch of people on poorly maintained aircraft, the invisible hand of the market will certainly correct…(bangs head into desk repeatedly)

  186. 186.

    Eric S.

    May 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    @Corner Stone: People walk in Houston? :)

    I was flying into Houston for work back in 2000/1 and I don’t remember them. Admittedly most of my time was spent in an office at Westheimer and Sam Houston Hwy.

  187. 187.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    @celticdragonchick: One of the big claims of Lost Causers / Neo-Confederate types is their hugely important and terribly oppressed Scots-Irish heritage, and many Klan rituals were intended to be re-enactments of Scottish traditions.

    FREEEEEDUMB!

  188. 188.

    Brachiator

    May 20, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s not about what’s in his heart. I couldn’t give a shit about what’s in his heart. What it’s about is that he supports bad policies. I don’t care why he does, but he does, and that’s what we need to be talking about, not getting bogged down in figuring out whether or not Paul touts those policies because he personally hates minorities.
    Aren’t whites the minority (or soon come, demographically speaking)?

    I find it fascinating that some people want to define racism as mainly a matter of antipathy towards nonwhites. I find this both odd and repellent, weirdly reductive and obviously ahistorical. You can find an almost endless stream of Southerners who professed their love of black people but who also were the most fierce segregationists. And then there are the liberal racists who love nonwhites, but who don’t want any of them living in their neighborhoods.

    From the perspective of a person who can’t get a job, buy a house, get his or her kids into a school, are they supposed to get some comfort from the idea that the guy supporting or operating such policies doesn’t personally dislike him?

    And racists, yeah, racists, love behind the lame excuse, “It’s not me. It’s the policy of the club.”

    But as Shakespeare once wrote, it’s the evil that men do.

  189. 189.

    celticdragonchick

    May 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    @El Cid:

    In point of fact, the English really did some borderline genocidal things to the Scots and the Irish. How you get from that to becoming a ‘night rider” and terrorizing black farmers and whites who ‘collaborate’ just escapes me entirely.

  190. 190.

    Lisa K.

    May 20, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Second, Paul sees government solely as a threat to freedom, in this case the freedom of the business owner. He is blind to the fact that government can be — at times must be — a guarantor of freedom and an arbiter of competing freedom interests. Again, libertarian thought — gleaming and pristine in the eyes of its adherents — simply doesn’t account for the messy complexities of real life. It survives as a hothouse orchid of political thought, pretty to look at but utterly incapable of survival in the real world.

    I like this quote from here.

    Rand Paul is a complete clown,

  191. 191.

    The Egg

    May 20, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    @Brachiator: Yes. It’s very similar to the currently starring racism seen in the polls of the Arizona law. Sure, other people may get hassled and have their rights violated, but not me, so who cares. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/05/rand-paul-only-likes-the-easy-part-of-freedom.php.

    Also, Yglesias points out that he opposes reducing Medicare payments to doctors (such as himself) .

  192. 192.

    Triassic Sands

    May 20, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    I like freedom as much as the next person and want as little government intervention into every aspect of life as possible…

    Very sloppy wording. It’s “possible” to have zero government intervention into virtually any and all aspects of life. When one wants that, and the consequences don’t matter, one is a Libertarian.

    Wanting the government to refrain from unnecessary or counterproductive involvement makes more sense.

  193. 193.

    Corner Stone

    May 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    @Eric S.:

    People walk in Houston? :)
    …
    I was flying into Houston for work back in 2000/1 and I don’t remember them. Admittedly most of my time was spent in an office at Westheimer and Sam Houston Hwy.

    Oh, Hells no. Only if you’re a bum.
    But they are automated in multiple locations so if on the off chance some blind bum was walking somewhere they could hear the signals.
    On the 2 weeks a year we get in the Spring, and the 2 in Fall, where we can drive round with the windows down these beeping mofo signals really jack our shit up.
    But I’m not against sight-disabled people. I just want to keep legislation that helps them the fuck away from being passed.
    Because it interferes with my life and lifestyle.

  194. 194.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    May 20, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.

    Well, yes. Exactly an idiot, not kind of.

    And Dems should be rejoicing. Rand Paul is basically an accidental primary winner, a gift to Dems. If we can’t beat this guy, we should fold up the Democratic Party and send it out to sea on an ice floe. With any luck, this bozo will be the poster boy for the short but noisy life of the so-called Tea Party, which is neither a party, nor a movement.

  195. 195.

    patrick II

    May 20, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    I think that, as judges are often accused of doing, people often start with the end result they want, then find the laws, or in Rand Paul’s case the constitutional philosophy, that justifies that end result, and then pretend it was the other way around. That is, they pretend their reading of the law or constitution requires them to reluctantly come to the “unpleasant” conclusion they actually wanted from the beginning.
    The usual giveaway for that is when the coherence of their views is challenged logically they are incapable of rethinking the logic of their case because it comes from the gut in the first place.
    That is the difference between a John Cole, whose views evolve, and Rand Paul, who is going to die thinking pretty much exactly the same way he does today.

  196. 196.

    Lisa K.

    May 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Dems should also be rejoicing because the reactive wingnuttery is on full frontal display today. John Stossel actually said the part of the Civil Rights Act that dictates that private businesses serve all regardless of race, religion or creed should actually be repealed.

  197. 197.

    Da Bomb

    May 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    @Midnight Marauder: Agree with you wholeheartedly. I am rpetty dumbfounded myself.

    @micah616: Unfortunately it is showing.

  198. 198.

    Brachiator

    May 20, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist.

    This is wrongheaded. We already tolerate assholes and racists to varying degrees. But we have decided as a society not to allow racists to be able to control the lives of people that they might want to single out and discriminate against.

  199. 199.

    Mr Furious

    May 20, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    I’d like to hear Rand Paul ask Michael Steele how long he would have been willing to wait for local officials to decide whether or not Jim Crow or separate water fountains is unacceptable.

    HA! Who the fuck knows how Steele would answer that question…? He’d find a way to fuck it up—with his answer pissing off not only GOP racists, but also African Americans.

  200. 200.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    @El Cid: Just like Beck and the other right-wingers are a John Brinkley-esque cashin, the Klan was one of our country’s first MLM schemes. You had to buy your robes, horse robes, materials, and all products directly from your official clan supplier.

  201. 201.

    JCT

    May 20, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    @Mr Furious:

    HA! Who the fuck knows how Steele would answer that question…?

    Actually, I wonder where Steele has been hiding himself today… pretty rare for him to avoid opening his mouth and making an ass of himself for an entire 24 hours. He’s been rather quiet since Tuesday night went so “well” for the GOP.

    Hmmmm.

  202. 202.

    LD50

    May 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    We’ve hit the 1,000 milestone in troop deaths in O-boy’s continuing little escapade in Afghanistan.

    Hear hear! I was just appalled when Obama invaded Afghanistan in 2001! Goddamn libtards!

  203. 203.

    mclaren

    May 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm

    The acid test remains Somalia.

    Whenever I run into one of these libertarian wackos, I ask ’em “So…when are you moving to Somalia?”

    They stare at me, googly-eyed, and eventually mutter, “Bu-bu-bu-but Somalia isn’t real libertarianism.”

    Turns out by “real libertarianism” they usually mean “Eisenhower Republicanism” with lots of dope and underage girls.

    Wankers.

  204. 204.

    Comrade Luke

    May 20, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    And Dems should be rejoicing. Rand Paul is basically an accidental primary winner, a gift to Dems. If we can’t beat this guy, we should fold up the Democratic Party and send it out to sea on an ice floe. With any luck, this bozo will be the poster boy for the short but noisy life of the so-called Tea Party, which is neither a party, nor a movement.

    True. Hopefully the Dem strategy won’t be “just run a little left of Paul and you’ll be fine”.

  205. 205.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    @maus: A lot of night-rider style white supremacy terrorist groups were pushed for and funded by the white supremacist rich elites.

    The Raleigh, NC News & Observer‘s then publisher Josephus Daniels in the late 1800’s later apologized for his role in pushing “Redemption” white supremist violence for crushing the recent democratic and political rights of Black Republicans and white Populists, including stirring up an actual coup d’etat against an elected government.

    Daniels and other Democrats launched a “White Supremacy” campaign to appeal to racist sentiment. That led to Democratic victories in 1898 and 1900 and to the disfranchisement of African Americans. On December 15, 2005, the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission noted in its draft report that Daniels’ involvement in the overthrow of the elected city government of Wilmington, NC, by actively promoting white supremacy in The News and Observer was so significant that he has been referred to as the “precipitator of the riot.”

  206. 206.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    @El Cid: I’m not suggesting that they weren’t, I’m saying that the official merchandise was a HUGE profit-maker and opportunistic people banked off of the club.

    @mclaren: Well duh, you have to be rich and white for Libertarianism to worerrrrI MEAN LIBERTARIANISM IS A INDIVIDUALIST RUGGED MERITOCRACY and without restrictions we will all be captains of industry! Free yourself of your minimum-wage bonds so we all can prosper.

  207. 207.

    AxelFoley

    May 20, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Please fuck off.

  208. 208.

    asiangrrlMN

    May 20, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Late to the thread, but I don’t particularly care to look into the soul of Rand Paul. Quite frankly, I’m afraid to see what’s there. And, he can both sincerely believe in his philosophies and still be a racist–they are not mutually exclusive. The end result is that he is more for nebulous property rights than civil rights–therefore, his policies are racist. That’s really all I care about. If he were allowed to put his ideas into practice, the results would be disastrous for minorities.

  209. 209.

    litbrit

    May 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    @Mark S.:
    I find it amazing that someone who is so against government regulation has no problem with the government forcing a woman go through a pregnancy against her will.

    Thank you.

  210. 210.

    El Cid

    May 20, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    @maus: I love the mental image of official Klan merchandise, like hoods & robes with local business logos & such. I’m really, really hoping that didn’t actually happen.

  211. 211.

    maus

    May 20, 2010 at 7:37 pm

    @El Cid: The Klan sold their own officially sanctioned newsletters, pamphlets, books, swords, bibles, dry-cleaning, insurance.

    http%3A%2F%2Fwww.economics.harvard.edu%2Ffaculty%2Ffryer%2Ffiles%2FHatred%2520and%2520Profits%2C%2520Getting%2520Under%2520the%2520Hood%2520of%2520the%2520Ku%2520Klux%2520Klan.pdf

  212. 212.

    Lysana

    May 20, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    @celticdragonchick:

    In point of fact, the English really did some borderline genocidal things to the Scots and the Irish.

    Fixed for sake of historical accuracy. The Great Hunger was an act of genocide conducted via a combination of legislative action (forbidding them any food but potatoes) and inaction (refusing to change that law when the blight hit). Ten percent is sufficient to deem it genocide. The population of Ireland took a far larger hit than that. You could say the Highland Clearances were closer to borderline, though I’m not sure what the figures are there. Also, the Clearances had more of a forced migration aspect than outright homicide, so it was more of a mass eviction.

    (Yeah, pet subject.)

    As for Rand Paul, I’d define him as a racist enabler. Just as diseased as a racist, but it shows in different ways. Yes, I’m drawing a direct analogy to alcoholism. Racists as unrepentant as Stormfront members are psychologically fixated on their superiority to the point they depend on what gives them the belief. People like Paul enable them to think they’re sane.

  213. 213.

    Yeggo

    May 20, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    I think to me, the most interesting part of this is that it may not say anything about Mr. Paul as a person, but it speaks volumes to him as a candidate, and to his ideology.

    I can’t help but be baffled by a major party Senate candidate who was so ineloquent when asked such a simple question. His father had no such problems enunciating the Libertarian position when asked, even when it was about this specific issue. Libertarianism doesn’t fit Rand as well as it does Ron, and I can’t help but wonder if he’s trying to mix the oil of Libertarianism with the water of Tea Partyism and finding himself unable.

    http://bit.ly/baBtbx

  214. 214.

    Triassic Sands

    May 20, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    @Yeggo:

    I think to me, the most interesting part of this is that it may not say anything about Mr. Paul as a person, but it speaks volumes to him as a candidate, and to his ideology.

    I dunno, Yeggo, don’t people’s ideologies say something about them as people?

  215. 215.

    Yeggo

    May 20, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    @Triassic Sands:

    Sorry, I was speaking more to the shortcomings of the Libertarian philosophy. How hard it is to reconcile a strictly anti-government position in the face of undeniable proof that the government, in this case, was a force for good. I don’t know if he’s a bad guy, I just think it’s almost impossible for him to defend Libertarianism when he also has to cater to plain old conservatism.

  216. 216.

    norris hall

    May 20, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    According to Rand Paul
    “if private lunch counter owners want to prevent blacks from eating there, that’s their right. “This is the hard part about believing in freedom.”

    So according to Rand Paul….. a corporation can refuse to hire someone because they are black or muslim or female or in a wheelchair or not pretty or not young.

    I’m not comfortable with this. Women have made great strides over the years to overcome discrimination in the workplace. Giving some “good old boys” of private companies the sole description of not hiring someone for a job based on something that has no relationship to performing the job is a step backwards.

    I know in some foreign countries in order to be an airhostess you have to be young and attractive. Qualified Men and experienced women over 30 need not apply.

    Thank God we are beyond that sort of nonesense.

    I suspect the Tea Party movement has many more surprises which we will continue to discover as their candidate gets closely examined for details

  217. 217.

    maus

    May 21, 2010 at 12:27 am

    @norris hall: It’s the hardest for the corporation, natch. Not those who are too black or too muslim or too female or too wheelchairy or too old.

  218. 218.

    Lisa K.

    May 21, 2010 at 8:12 am

    @norris hall:

    So according to Rand Paul….. a corporation can refuse to hire someone because they are black or muslim or female or in a wheelchair or not pretty or not young.

    Yes, they can. Or they can refuse to provide safety protections to their workers, because after all, as the thinking goes, who would work there with no safety protections?

    In a libertarian’s mind, nothing is bad if someone is willing to buy it or patronize it. Right and wrong are businesses decisions, not moral imperatives.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic Peninsula: Lake Quinault Loop Drive 5
Image by PaulB (5/19/25)

Recent Comments

  • Gin & Tonic on War for Ukraine Day 1,180: The Cost (May 19, 2025 @ 8:30pm)
  • BellyCat on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 8:30pm)
  • different-church-lady on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 8:29pm)
  • stinger on Saving Biomedical Research (Open Thread) (May 19, 2025 @ 8:27pm)
  • Citizen Alan on Monday Evening Open Thread: Perspective (May 19, 2025 @ 8:25pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!