Rand Paul, Private Property, Racial Discrimination

[magickyleo101]

I don't know if anyone else has been following the Rand Paul blow up. Te basic story is that, Rand Paul won the Republican primary for the Kentucky senate seat with pretty strong tea party backing. He then went on to criticize the 1964 Civil Rights act, which prohibits discrimination based on race in in employment, in public accommodations, etc. He's since backed off the comments, but the events pose a pretty interesting question about private property.

Apparently, the basic rational behind criticism of the civil rights act is that private businesses own the property they have their business on and they should be able to determine who can go on their property and who can't. When the government tells a movie theater not to discriminate on the basis of race, they're essentially violating the theater owner's property rights.

What are your thoughts on that line of reasoning?

I think the reasoning reveals a pretty childish and naive understanding of property rights. Both as a description of how property rights actually work and as a prescription about how they ought to work, simply owning a piece of property has never meant that you can do whatever you want with your property. For example, zoning laws generally prevent me from building a shopping mall in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I also can't stop police or paramedics from coming onto my land to help someone who's hurt (regardless of whether I had anything to do with them getting hurt).

Property rights exist because of their social utility and not because there's some naturally existing moral relationship between people and chunks of matter. When property rights come into conflict with other important social goals, they can and should be subordinated. Preventing racism is an important social goal, and there's no real social purpose served by leaving people free to discriminate on their own land.

[Admiral Piett]

In theory he is 100% correct but in practice its far too naive. The last thing we want to do is get rid of some of these property regulations that have taken so long to develop.

The part of the Civil Rights Act that I find very offensive though is that it had to resort to interstate commerce clauses as a loophole to make it seem constitutionally valid. This completely discounts that all American citizens are subject to the same and equal protection under the Constitution and it lumps citizens into the category of commerce. Which is a nasty precedent when citizens become classified as state resources.

I see what he's trying to say that some parts of the law are probably no longer really valid in our society and he's making the point that he supports property rights vehemently, but it's a dumb move to suggest that property rights should have 100% authority.

[magickyleo101]

In theory he is 100% correct but in practice its far too naive. The last thing we want to do is get rid of some of these property regulations that have taken so long to develop.

The part of the Civil Rights Act that I find very offensive though is that it had to resort to interstate commerce clauses as a loophole to make it seem constitutionally valid. This completely discounts that all American citizens are subject to the same and equal protection under the Constitution and it lumps citizens into the category of commerce. Which is a nasty precedent when citizens become classified as state resources.

I see what he's trying to say that some parts of the law are probably no longer really valid in our society and he's making the point that he supports property rights vehemently, but it's a dumb move to suggest that property rights should have 100% authority.

I agree with you about the commerce clause loophole. The problem is that there's no other good provision in the Constitution to prevent private discrimination under. The 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply only to state actors, so it doesn't prevent private discrimination on the basis of race. Realistically, the law should have been passed by tying highway money (or something like that) to a requirement that states pass laws to prohibit discrimination.

And there are some other parts of the law that I find problematic too (such as the parts that put special scrutiny only on some states).

[♔DeusVult!♔]

In theory he is 100% correct but in practice its far too naive. The last thing we want to do is get rid of some of these property regulations that have taken so long to develop.

The part of the Civil Rights Act that I find very offensive though is that it had to resort to interstate commerce clauses as a loophole to make it seem constitutionally valid. This completely discounts that all American citizens are subject to the same and equal protection under the Constitution and it lumps citizens into the category of commerce. Which is a nasty precedent when citizens become classified as state resources.

I see what he's trying to say that some parts of the law are probably no longer really valid in our society and he's making the point that he supports property rights vehemently, but it's a dumb move to suggest that property rights should have 100% authority.

Sorry I am so late to this discussion (haven't read whole thread), but I wanted to emphasize this point. As I understand it, Paul was taking exception to the use of Constitutionally dubious means to achieve a political (yet morally sound) goal. The Federal gov has since gone crazy with its interpretations of interstate commerce and passed all sorts of loony laws. Theoretically, the commerce clause can now be used to trump any state laws, and this totally destroys the intent of the Constitution.

Example: I think everyone in AmERica should be able to buy and carry a handgun or "assault" rifle. I could justifiably state that the manufacture and sale of weapons falls under interstate commerce and therefore nullify every single gun restriction law. I think ya'll can see the problems with using such methods.

[Valiant Champion]

What is most important is what Obama press man said the other day. That the 60s civil rights issues are not relevant for 2010 lawmaking. Rand is being criticized over a bill that was passed around the time he was born. A bill that a Democrat filibustered once to halt its passage.

[PoleCat]

snip...Apparently, the basic rational behind criticism of the civil rights act is that private businesses own the property they have their business on and they should be able to determine who can go on their property and who can't. When the government tells a movie theater not to discriminate on the basis of race, they're essentially violating the theater owner's property rights....snip

The immediate counter-argument that I think of in this case is that most businesses are set-up to be open to the general public - that is their raison d'etre . As the general public is largely diverse I can't see a valid argument for discrimination based on any social factors.

I'm not sure that this would be a legally valid argument however....

[Gromovnik]

How much are these laws relevant today? I mean a company that would discriminate people (if they were allowed to) would be socialy stigmatised and out of bussiness soon enough.

[magickyleo101]

How much are these laws relevant today? I mean a company that would discriminate people (if they were allowed to) would be socialy stigmatised and out of bussiness soon enough.

In most parts of the country I'm sure this is the case, but especially in some parts of the south social pressure simply won't be enough (in fact, the social pressure might push the wrong way). Besides, minorities shouldn't have to wait around for discrimination to be publicized enough to generate social pressure to put a company out of business.

[Gromovnik]

In most parts of the country I'm sure this is the case, but especially in some parts of the south social pressure simply won't be enough (in fact, the social pressure might push the wrong way). Besides, minorities shouldn't have to wait around for discrimination to be publicized enough to generate social pressure to put a company out of business.

good point, but even with this law, there are some joints known to be racist hangouts. so they don't really need to say: we don't want group X, they create an atmosphere where this is evident. so the law only forces them to wear a thin veil, so to speak.

[Viking Prince]

How much are these laws relevant today? I mean a company that would discriminate people (if they were allowed to) would be socialy stigmatised and out of bussiness soon enough.

I approve of the Civil Rights act and I approve of its application via the commerce clause. Rand Paul is in error here. I am sympathetic to owners of wealth to dispose or enjoy their own wealth as they see fit. But the abilty to enjoy private property without restriction ends when you offer the general public services and products for fees or other compensation. You are now entering the world of commerce which has been regulated by governments. We accept that buildings need to meet fire codes. The businesses must conform to land use zoning. The myrid of government regulation is great. That the government is too intrusive is not the argument being presented by Rand Paul.

The problem now as it was then is not about boycotting Woolworths for lunch counter discrimination. National chains are subject to pressure at all of their outlets for the actions at one of their outlets. The problem of discrimination is about the small business owner. National boycots do not matter with a small diner, a non-franchised motel, or an owner of a single apartment building. These services are offered direct and locally to the public and do not rely on a national market.

Public accomodation regulation is and probably will be a source of contention by many who believe the government interferes too much in the affairs of private proterty owners. The line is blurred with private clubs -- look to the Masters at Augusta. A local club that does not admit women and also hosts a nationally important golf tournament. Pressure can be applied to those who participate, but no national boycott can be applied to the membership committee of a coutry club. The only lever is the golf tournament with national sponsors and nation media coverage. The club meets the definition of a public accomadation regarding the tournament but not regarding the matter of membership requirements.

[Admiral Piett]

I approve of the Civil Rights act and I approve of its application via the commerce clause. Rand Paul is in error here. I am sympathetic to owners of wealth to dispose or enjoy their own wealth as they see fit. But the abilty to enjoy private property without restriction ends when you offer the general public services and products for fees or other compensation. You are now entering the world of commerce which has been regulated by governments. We accept that buildings need to meet fire codes. The businesses must conform to land use zoning. The myrid of government regulation is great. That the government is too intrusive is not the argument being presented by Rand Paul.

The problem now as it was then is not about boycotting Woolworths for lunch counter discrimination. National chains are subject to pressure at all of their outlets for the actions at one of their outlets. The problem of discrimination is about the small business owner. National boycots do not matter with a small diner, a non-franchised motel, or an owner of a single apartment building. These services are offered direct and locally to the public and do not rely on a national market.

Public accomodation regulation is and probably will be a source of contention by many who believe the government interferes too much in the affairs of private proterty owners. The line is blurred with private clubs -- look to the Masters at Augusta. A local club that does not admit women and also hosts a nationally important golf tournament. Pressure can be applied to those who participate, but no national boycott can be applied to the membership committee of a coutry club. The only lever is the golf tournament with national sponsors and nation media coverage. The club meets the definition of a public accomadation regarding the tournament but not regarding the matter of membership requirements.

It's my understanding that Rand was just making an example of how far government has become involved in the commercial world. Plus, I do partially agree with him that the government should not classify citizens as commerce.

The difference between the Civil Rights Act and the codes that you mentioned, are that one is federal and the others are purely state and local.

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWimn...re=ytn:mptnews


So from Stossel who agrees with Rand, and actually thinks this should be repealed, thinks Private businesses should have the right to be racist. He is of course assuming racism is only going one way - white against everyone else... so he thinks he be fine in the end. Now if he agrees with this then I just want to see his reaction when or if asian restaurants and Mexican restaurants start discriminating against white people... or vice versa. Racism only creates divisions and he is basically saying its alright. Close nit communities are not going to eliminate racism from their areas if the law allows them to discriminate.

[Denny Crane!]

Not sure if I have a problem with his views, I'm pretty sure racism would be wiped out all the faster if it was out in the open. Racism was in part almost brought about by the state and sanctions that were maintained against black people (as well as the right to own them of course) which made the acts of law necessary back then in order to try to bring some sort of equality back, and we're nearly all the way there but not quite.

One thing that is certain is that racism isn't acceptable in the mainstream and I can't see it ever getting that way again.

[Snoopy]

Yeah, it is their property, they can ban whoever they want from it. White people, black people, homosexuals, whatever, the owner is in charge as it is his property. Likewise, I could ban him from my cafe for banning me from his supermarket.

At any rate, anyone who went full Jim-Crow would be out of business in a flash. Racism isn't exactly popular. If anything, it would bring racism out into the open. You shouldn't need to have laws against racism, it doesn't achieve anything. At any rate, most of the discrimination of the 50s and 60s came from government supported laws, not so much from private business owners.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think there would be far more sexual discrimination than racism if this law was revoked. We could easily see no homosexuals allowed compared to "No Blacks" or "No Hispanics".

Although I dont doubt there would be some sort of racism by some stores and other facilities. It is easily possible. Maddow pointed out to a interracial dating policy as early as the early 2000s.

[Phier]

Without looking it up, hes for massive tort reform so it all evens out.

[Big War Bird]

Women need to get the hell off the golf courses.

[MathiasOfAthens]

God tort reform wouldnt do to remove health care costs, instead it will make it harder for legitimate claims to be filed against doctors and HMOs. Lawsuits encourage companies to make safer products.... the lack of lawsuits doesnt.

[Phier]

God tort reform wouldnt do to remove health care costs, instead it will make it harder for legitimate claims to be filed against doctors and HMOs. Lawsuits encourage companies to make safer products.... the lack of lawsuits doesnt.

Well if you say so.

While I strongly suspect you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I'm sure I am at fault, and the 100's of millions of dollars the lawsuit lawyers give to the democrats was about product safety and not gross profit.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well if you say so.

While I strongly suspect you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I'm sure I am at fault, and the 100's of millions of dollars the lawsuit lawyers give to the democrats was about product safety and not gross profit.

And the 100s of millions of dollars Big Pharm gives to the Conservatives to pursue tort reform? I mean if we are just going to throw undocumented and outrageous numbers around...