Local Libertarian Opines on Rand Paul Civil Rights Controversy
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 5/27/10 @ 10:03 am - Filed Under 2010 National Elections, National Politics
Rand Paul is a libertarian (and son of Ron Paul) who easily won the recent Republican Senate primary in Kentucky. Shortly after, he became a national point of discussion due to his comments about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and how the federal government imposes on private businesses.
I asked Robert Enders, local Libertarian and blogger, for his thoughts regarding this controversy and his response is shown below. I’ve also included a clip that contains Rand Paul’s comments…
(Robert Enders) I was asked about my perspective on Rand Paul’s comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Frankly, I’m surprised that this is an issue. There is no movement to repeal or modify any portion of the law in question. No business is clamoring for the right to turn down paying customers on the basis of their skin color. The question of whether or not any business has such a right is academic at best in this day and age. If a businessman insists that he has such a right, he’ll have to find someone other than me to defend it because I won’t do it.
A common theme that I see in criticisms of libertarianism is critics will oversimplify the philosophy, then insist that it can be used to justify allowing toddlers to carry handguns or throwing all poor people into the street. Such arguments are reductio ad absurdum and they are wrong. Like everyone else, we recognize that freedom has its limits. Every set of political beliefs allows for a few exceptions. Environmentalists don’t advocate protecting every tree, Democrats can’t protect every job, and Republicans don’t protect every marriage. I personally will not protect a restaurant’s right to exclude my family, friends, and neighbors.
Comments
8 Responses to “Local Libertarian Opines on Rand Paul Civil Rights Controversy”
Leave a Reply
By this theory should a black owner of a convention center be required to lease his facility to the KKK for a rally or even a meeting? I disagree with Mr. Enders, and I will stand by this private property owner who wishes to decide who is and is not welcome on his property.
My $0.02
Can’t say I’m surprised.
Ah, the glories of the big-L Libertarian party! “In this day and age,” any sort of alternative to the political duopoly is “academic at best,” which makes me wonder why the LP doesn’t just make it official and fold.
Anyway, I will cheerfully defend anyone’s right to free association, or non-association, on any grounds, good or bad. And there’s why I’m not a Libertarian … I’m too libertarian for ‘em. It’s a funny old world.
Jim, Brad,
You guys can stand up for any rights you want. It’s still allegedly a free country. Likewise, I am not obligated to stand up for anything. I would be well within my rights to drop out of politics altogether and play video games all day. Instead I choose to stand up for causes that I think have a real impact. Maybe I’m wasting my time when I argue against the government screwing around with healthcare, but it is my time to waste.
The name of this blog is Fort Wayne Politics, not Fort Wayne Philosophy. I am a politician, not a philosopher. If you like, you can argue all day long for the right to a whites only restaurant. But I have a couple very good political reasons for not doing so.
1. A racist businessman would likely fail at any retail endeavor, just as a blind man would likely fail at driving a car. Does a racist man have the right to open a store? Theoretically perhaps, but he clearly lacks the ability to do it competently. A blind man may theoretically have the right to drive a car, but he lacks the ability. So the rights to racist retail or blind driving are both moot points.
2. I don’t think that the owner of a whites only establishment would defend my right to date a Hispanic woman. So why should I do any favors for him?
By what basis have you decided that the healthcare legislation is bad? I agree with you, but I agree based on my specific principles of government. If you don’t have a theory of what government should and should not be, some principle which you will not allow policy positions to cross, then how do you decide what to stand for?
I do not intend this as an insult, but as a true curiosity.
Last, would you stand for the convention center owner that I mentioned above? How do you determine what places are private and what places are public?
Oh, man, this just gets better and better. An LP type wants to short-circuit any impertinent discussion of political philosophy with “I’m a politician, not a philosopher.”
So how’s that workin’ out for ya, Robert? Been elected to anything lately?
You know, I can imagine why some reprobate might say, “I decided to sell out my principles for power, by becoming a Republican” (or a Democrat). But the man who decides to grasp power by joining the Libertarian Party is being …well, foolish.
Brad,
I do have principles. I just figure that the recent healthcare crap is a far greater infringement on liberty than anything in the Civil Rights Act, and the recent legislation will be easier to repeal.
The convention hall owner would presumably be excluding the KKK on the basis of political views.
Political discrimination is in no danger of being outlawed, on account that those who have the power to ban it actively engage in the practice. Besides, political discrimination is often very necessary. A butcher shop wouldn’t want to hire a PETA member. A pharmacy that sells the Morning After pill wouldn’t want to hire a Operation Rescue member.
Now I have a question for you: Are you aware of any business owner who wants to exclude customers on the basis of race? If not, why make a fuss about this?
Jim,
Since you asked, I’ve not been elected to anything, but I’ve served on an Election Board exploratory committee. And there were at least two GOP elected officials in Indiana who have defected to our party since 2008. But you are more than welcome to remain pure and on the sidelines.
Mr. Enders,
I will happily admit that I know no business person who would want to exclude someone from their facility on the basis of race. Although I can think of several race-based organizations that would and do discriminate membership based on race and gender and I think they should retain the right to do so. The reason I would be forced to stand for the right of a business owner discriminates base on race is that, as a libertarian at heart, I feel obligated to stand up for for two things above all other: free will and property rights.
I also agree that the discriminatory businessman would fail. Look at what happened in Fort Wayne when the laundromat employee put the sign in the window. People protested, boycotted and had the owner not made a very public apology he would be out of business by now. Had this owner been racist and refused to budge he would have lost money for months on end until he was forced to close. Now property can be rented by someone else. His equipment can be purchased at a very low rate by someone else. By this a new, more competitive, non-discriminatory business is born. This is the beauty of free will. You have the freedom to manage your property as you see fit, yet I retain the freedom to choose to stay away.
Imagine a similar situation where the government gets involved and shuts the place down. Now the building owner has lost rent, likely for several months or years while an “investigation” takes place. The equipment is seized and sold by the government for their profit. The community is left without the benefit of the new business being born. All of this to root out an evil that the market would have naturally punished.
Who should benefit from the loss of the racist business owner, the government or the community?
I’m sure you are a very fine gentleman… but a Libertarian Party leader that will not defend property rights on ANY ground for ANY reason at EVERY opportunity is not a leader I can follow.
Brad,
People don’t follow leaders in my party, or any American political party. (At least the smart ones don’t!) My job as LPAC chairman was not to maintain ideological purity but to organize the meetings, make sure our legal paperwork was filled out, etc. I did not have the authority to call up any one of our members and tell him that he needs to change his stance on an issue. For that matter, Michael Steele does not have the authority to shape Rand Paul’s platform. (Russ Scribner is the LPAC chair now; I don’t know his stances on all the issues, but he’s got the right ideas on the important ones.) You are more than welcome to join our party and spend your time and energy on any issue you want. Want to march in front of the City-County building and demand that City Utilities be privatized? Go right ahead. Pick any issue that you want, and see how many other people you can get to participate.
You and I are arguing over a scenario that involves a businessman making an unlikely decision with an even less likely chance of success. I would rather my limited time and energy defending a company’s right to determine how to compensate its employees.