*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by NetRunner.

beat me to the post again netrunner.
I'm surprised to enjoy MSNBC again after getting sick of it.

Man, if that guy had to give a straight answer his dick would come out of his mouth.

In defense of the abhorrent. Keep dancing, Rand.

......

What spurious arguments.

Racial discrimination ended in Boston (and the north) in the 1800s? Not at all. Blacks were getting their heads busted in Boston in the 60s as well.

So, if this guy had his way, Woolworths would be free to not serve blacks at lunch counters; Rosa Parks should go to the back of the bus (run by a private company).

This is where libertarianism hits a brick wall.

19:00 It won't have any effect, because you are in Kentucky, where they love that kind of crap.

I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.

I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap. So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions. As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.

Does he remind anyone else of Tommy Carcetti?

>> ^RedSky:

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?
Much of the campaigning against gay rights tries to tap into this same fear and misunderstanding. Think of that vague 'a storm is gathering' ad campaign, or the notion that legalising gay marriage will encourage homosexuality or even lead directly to bestiality or polygamy: fear mongering or patently ridiculous for anyone grounded in reality but potentially highly plausible for someone who has grown up in a very religiously fundamentalist region.


I think that's the real problem with what Rand's saying. What racism remains has been largely been driven underground by the law, and broadly speaking by public opinion, though without the law I'm sure you'd find white/black segregation creeping back in certain localized areas.

The more modern bigotry against gays, Muslims, Arabs, and Latinos would love to come out into the light of day if we got rid of the prohibition on discrimination in privately owned business.

Yes, it's a stupid thing to do, economically speaking, but that certainly doesn't mean a lot of small businesses wouldn't do it. Hell, they may even attract more business in some areas as the bigots come out of the woodwork to support the racist policy (see the "buycott" efforts from some quarters to counter the boycott of Arizona over its immigration policy for an example).

I was surprised that he didn't even manage to clearly articulate the libertarian view on this kind of thing. Did he not think it would come up?

I find it difficult to disagree or agree with him, not on the historical context he gives which I don't know much about but on the principle. I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.


Study after study have proven this is not true, both in the private and public domains. I'm speaking about overt and institutional racism. Heck, they just codified a racial profiling and banned ethnic studies in Arizona.


I think the Civil Rights Act as it was, applying to both public and private entities served a purpose. It made people come together and realize that much of the animosity was more fear of the unknown and a lack of intercommunication between two cultures that had simply grown apart. Heck, there's a whole litany of (terrible) black/white buddy cop movies that symbolize bridging this gap.

In the South, there had always been interpersonal communications and relationships between individuals of different races. The problem was the discrimination,i.e., forced to give up your seat for whites, not being able to use the restroom in certain parts of the city, being banned from attending most Universities, etc.

So I don't think that it was really the legislation that changed the state of society but the effect that forcing two cultures to become accustomed to each other had on perceptions.

The civil rights act didn't just magically change the country when it was passed. It took years of enforcement and civil agitation to bring the spirit of the law into reality. The legislation was a crucial step, though.

As it is now, I think in the vast majority of regions he is right, businesses who if given the chance would exclude black people, would be shooting themselves in the foot.

May I assume you have the luxury of not having to take that risk?

Not to mention, ultimately given that most people today aren't racist, as a minority would you want to inadvertently end up working under someone who is racist?

In a world where one both has to eat, and is a minority, what is desired is not to change the hearts of the whole country, but to be hired. I think that a significant amount of people in the US are racist, you think they aren't, but ultimately, it all about ensuring behavior (e.g., hiring, service) fits the law, not someone's thoughts.

Oh, and Rand here said that he never read the Civil Rights Act, but then is able to cite the specific Title in the Act he opposes.

So, he's a liar. *lies

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by longde.

I think Josh Marshall's commentary pretty much nails it on this:

Political philosophy can never be free of history. And there is no denying that similar states rights or libertarian arguments have been the arguments of choice for those who want to defend racial discrimination since avowed defenses of racial prejudice and subordination became publicly unacceptable outside some parts of the South in the early second half of the last century. That's simply a fact. In principle, it doesn't delegitimize libertarian political philosophy. But we don't live in classrooms or treatises. We live in an actual world where history and experience can't be separated from philosophy.

It seems that yesterday US Senate candidate Rand Paul let the cat out of the bag and admitted that under his brand of libertarian conservatism he can’t support the 1964 Civil Rights Act or other non-discrimination legislation as applied to private businesses. He goes out of his way to explain that he doesn’t actually favor segregated lunch counters, he just thinks it would be wrong to do anything about them. Similarly, I suppose the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell would tell you he doesn’t actually want poor children to suffer from starvation or malnourishment he just thinks it’s folly to try to do anything about it collectively. Maybe private charity will feed kids, or maybe not. Maybe voluntary action will undue Jim Crow, or maybe not.

Let's see... there's the easy way to have this discussion
Q: "Do you think the Civil Rights Act and the ADA are overreaches in government?/ Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964?"
A: "I support the Civil Rights Act and believe that America still has a way to come for true social justice"

Then there's the way that isn't a canned politician response, and actually shows independent thinking.

Q: "Would you allow a private business to have a "No Blacks Allowed" sign?"
A: "I would be insulted to even see such a sign at an establishment, but the freedom of speech alotted to us by the constitution and bill of rights protects the rights of all people, even bigots and racists, and we must respect that."

I also think it is interesting that Rachel Maddow tries to steer the future discussion on his campaign:

"I think [Civil Rights Act] is going to be the focus nationally on your candidacy now, and you're going to have a lot more debates like this, so. I hope you don't hold it against me for bringing it up, I think this is going to be a continuing discussion for a long time, Dr. Paul."

"Well I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue, nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I am interested in any legislation concerning. So what you bring up is sort of a red herring - or something that you want to pit - it's a political ploy. I mean, It's brought up as an attack weapon by the other side, and I think that is how it will be used."

It really is agitating that this is the coverage that his campaign is getting. It is a technicality in Libertarian thought, that is sensationalized. I'm sure that he is actually running on a platform that doesn't even mention the civil rights act - or any acts of segregation or civil rights. This segment is an unfortunate waste of time for both Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul.

At least they were both really civil, and kept talking over each other to a minimum.

"What's interesting is that (meandering thought that doesn't answer question)." Man, this guy shined and wore the hell out of his dance shoes to this interview.

Looks like his campaign staff are putting out a reversal on his behalf.

It's going to be the first question interviewers are going to ask him every time he gives an interview from here on out. He'd better start practicing for that eventuality now.

These embeds never work for me

>> ^RedSky:

I would presume in the vast majority of regions in the US, institutional racism simply doesn't exist any more. Sure, there's the crackpot here and there who's openly racist, there's the few here and there that harbor racist thoughts but on the whole it's simply not there.


That's very naive.

It doesn't exist primarily because it is against he law to exist.

If you remove the law that bars people from hanging signs in their windows that say "Whites Only" or "No Mexicans" you would soon start seeing signs like that popping up all over the south and the south-west.

And what happens to those people who ignore the signs? They are subsequently treated as criminals, and the arm of the law will "do its job."

We have made some progress, yes, but not nearly as much as you presume.

You're all probably right, I think I am out of touch here. Someone had to play devil's advocate though!