I blogged about this before, but since it looks like Rand Paul is likely going to win the GOP nomination for US Senate, and then probably the election, it bears repeating:
This guy thinks we should let private businesses decide on their own whether or not to refuse service to people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, planet of birth, etc.
You say "libertarian, " I say "delusional white man." Of course he doesn't care if businesses are allowed to discriminate 'cause no one is gonna discriminate against him, especially after he becomes a US Senator.
(I should add at this point that he will NOT achieve his goal of a segregationist free-for-all. Thankfully, too few think like he does to permit such an outrage.)
People say "libertarian" and "capitalism" in this country as if they are the ideal, that if we have purity on these philosophies, we will achieve our best society. That is also delusional and really, really shows an ignorance of American history.
As an example in just one small area of American life, extreme libertarianism would mean no protection for minorities, which, as observed above, really only sucks for the minorities. Remember, we had to fight a WAR to end slavery, pass 3 constitutional amendments to TRY to undo the cultural servitude that came from slavery, then we had to pass more federal legislation in the 20th century just to TRY to enforce equality on racist segregationists. We still struggle with these issues today.
What ignorant folly to suggest that we just "let people choose" who they do business with? You can choose to be racist. It's a free country. And many people do choose this route. But do we really want to go back to segregation? Because we will in many rural parts of this country if Rand has his way. Haven't we embarrassed ourselves enough?
Extreme capitalism: OK, so here's a revolutionary thought. Pure capitalism is BAD. It is BAD not because it is immoral, but because it is amoral. It gives no regard for anything but profit. Under pure capitalism, slavery was an excellent labor source, because it is the cheapest labor you can get. PROFIT! Short of that, the abject exploitation of workers (as in the Gilded Age from the late 19th to early 20th centuries) will do nicely as well. PROFIT! It took unionization to stem this tide of abuse.
When I hear people gripe about unions, I wonder if they know what kind of crap-hole this country would be without them? Read about the Gilded Age and find out. Workers killed by machinery, bodies dumped and replaced with the next fungible troglodite, pitifully low wages, dismemberment, abuse, child labor, the list goes on and on, while corporate owners made GAZILLIONS of dollars (Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc.). But unions here did not overthrow our government. Instead, they engaged in collective negotiations to get a better deal. Supply and demand, negotiation, labor markets, etc. See how it works?
Any organization can become too powerful, but a balance is needed, and we cannot have a balance without unions, IMO. (Sorry, I sound like a scene from The Katate Kid.)
Pure capitalism means no post office, no military (only private mercenaries), no police, no fire department, and it also means that bribery of public officials is A-OK. Because pure capitalism means the only law is profit.
So before you start calling people socialists, maybe remember that YOU ARE ONE TOO.
Hey, wait, we have something to agree upon here. How the CRAP did that happen?
ReplyDeleteNow, speaking of Rand Paul particularly, when I look at his overall political agendas, I have more in common with him than not. However, as a "Republican by way of Libertarianism" I would agree that in general, a business open to the public can't choose inherent aspects of people and discriminate against them as if that makes them somehow less human.
I believe the true role of government in America is the complex job of equally protecting everyone's individual rights. That principle is based, in part, on the concept that we are all created equal. If you do not believe that, then fine, but I believe it is a legitimate role for or government to prevent you from pushing that ideology on the public since it violates our basic American principles (as we have come to accept them).
This is why when I say "limited government" I do not mean unlimited libertarianism or unconstrained capitalism. I mean government focused on the ideal of equal protection of individual freedoms. In MOST cases, I find "conservative" politics more in line with that ideal than the corresponding "liberal" politics.
Here's an interesting thought--if we DID allow privately owned companies to discriminate as they wish, in most cases I'd guess that very very few businesses would choose to do so and an even smaller percentage of those who did would find themselves successful. I could be wrong in some cases, but I find that an encouraging thought. Still, people are people, and laws should protect our fundamental principles.
Finally, yes it really is about balance. As you mention in your example, unions, properly balanced, can prevent workers from being unduly exploited (which is a form of violating freedoms), but without proper balance can become an palpable threat against the rights of those who own and run a business.
So, have we agreed more than disagreed on this one?
-Jason
Disagree. If I want to employ my property and capital to run a business then I get to decide who I want to do business with. And if I decise to discriminate against people then they can choose to take their business elsewhere and not spend their money on my products and services. Furthermore, they can advertise to their hearts content that I am a racist bastard who does not deserve anyone's business. Then they can take their own money and set up a competing business to drive me out.
ReplyDeleteWe wouldn't force someone to shop at a store in spite of their own racist views against the store owner or because perhaps they dislike the racist views of the store owner. We would simply tell them to vote with their dollars and shop elsewhere. Why then should the other side of the equation be any different? Why then should we force a shop owner to engage in a transaction against his or her will?
If the buyer's or seller's bigotry kills the business, hallelujah, but let's not have the goverment keep a bigot in business through forced commerce.
The role of the government in this respect should be limited to ensuring that players do not exclude other market participant through force or a dominant market advantage that precludes other parties from any participation in the market or prevents new entrants from entering the market to serve those rejected by the discriminator.
There certainly was a time when government was needed for just such a purpose. Market power was concentrated in the hands of majority, often times bigoted participants. Today however, while such market discrimination exists, it is largely neutered by the market power enjoyed by most minority groups. Minority groups have been very succesful at providing products and services to their constituencies. If market participants controlled by majorities want to forgo potential profits to be garnered by servicing a diverse client base then that is their loss and management can explain that to their board and their shareholders. Let the more broad-minded and greedy firms service all-comers and reap the rewards.
Some may say that this is an idealistic and naive view of liberty given ample evidence of atrocious behavior on the part many bigots, powerful and not so powerful. Perhaps it is naive. But it is no more unreasonable to expect freedom from government intervention in the disposal and use of personal property (as long as not infinging on the liberties of others) than it is to expect freedom from government intervention in personal health choices or other personal matters in which we find government interference outrageous. It may be, on the other hand, as naive and idealistic to suppose that forcing people to buy and sell from everyone (at least certain defined classes of people) will somehow make us all less racist, that forcing people to play together will eliminate their racist views and make the world a better place. You don't grant greater freedom to some by withdrawing it from others.
Mental Vacuum - aptly named, BTW - if you are so proud, why do you hide your name?
ReplyDeleteSecond, we may complain about government intervention, but let's be honest, we rely on it. Social Security, Medicare, VA, police, fire, postal service. Let's not pretend otherwise.
The main purposes of the federal government are to defend us from our enemies and to provide a framework for commerce. What kind of framework for commerce allows minorities, disabled people, etc. to be shut out? Not a very good one!
Finally, send me your hypothetical address, and I'll send you a hypothetical "Whites Only" sign for your hypothetical business.
Another note - yes every restriction of behavior is a deprivation of freedom. Just like outlawing rape, murder, child abuse, and slavery are restrictions on the freedoms of those who wish to engage in these activities. NO ONE's freedom is without limits. NO ONE's.
ReplyDeleteHeather, you note that every restriction of behavior is a deprivation of freedom. That is exactly why, since the basis of American government is protection of freedom, every government restriction of freedom should be warranted as necessary for protecting a more justifiable freedom. You can't speed because you will unreasonably endanger others, for example.
ReplyDeleteIt's all matter of balance, but as soon as you forget about that balance and government intervention becomes about simply upholding some other morality or bolstering commerce or whatever, the balance is soon lost and protection of freedom goes out the window. I know there are also rare exceptions to this (where without certain laws or actions not necessarily focused on freedom, our society as a whole may be endangered--in which case no protection of freedom would be available), but those cases are very rare and still should be handled with extra care to sustain the balance.
Mental Vacuum, I would argue that just as fundamental to our government as freedom is the idea of innate human equality (thus demanding equal protection of freedom). We've come to the point in this country where we understand that promoting racism (especially through commerce) goes against the principles of innate equality. I have no problem putting reasonable limits on such activity in order to uphold our fundamental principles of government.
-Jason
Perhaps you missed the "without infringing on the rights of others" part. That is the key. So indeed no, no one's rights are without limit and no one said or suggested otherwise. But it is a cosmic leap to say that refusing to do business with someone for whatever reason they choose is tantamount to rape, murder or child abuse. Clearly they are qualitatively different and suggesting that they are equivalent is a disingenuous slap in the face to rape, murder and child abuse victims. I am sure that given the choice they would rather have been denied the opportunity to do business in lieu of their ordeal. I expect you would agree with that.
ReplyDeleteAgreed there are certainly many roles for federal government. A very important one is to ensure that one's expression of liberty does not infringe upon another's.
Forced commerce should not be a role of the government. Would you be as vociferous in support of forcing a minority buyer to transact business with a majority seller even if that buyer loathed everything about the seller. After all, if the government's role is to ensure non-discrimination in commerce, then it must protect buyers and sellers alike.
And why must commerce be different? We protect bigotry in thought, belief and speech. We protect the freedom of association and the freedom from association. We protect discrimination on all sorts of things. Why then must we draw the line at commerce? It is the business owner's property and capital. No one else's. Denial of commerce is no infringement on anyone's liberty, inconvenient, frustrating, even embarrassing though they may be. Buy somewhere else and encourage everyone not to do business with the discriminating establishment. The bus strikes during the civil-rights era were effective for precisely this reason (though not to suggest that these actions were sufficient and that no government intervention was needed. Clearly it was and it was justified and ther right thing to do. People's liberties and rights were violated).
Now, why must it be that attempts to promote liberty are met with accusations or at least intimations (i.e., "hypothetical") of racism. "What? You want to be free to decide how to live your own life? You want to decide who you want to associate with for yourself?...Well you must be a racist!"
This is not about advancing bigoted views (though may bigots would surely be advanced by an increase in liberty). It is about allowing the sovereign, from whom all government power derives, the natural right to direct their own affairs while at the same time allowing others to do the same. I find many forms of discrimination to be atrocious and I would not do business with those who espouse. [Before you say it, we all discriminate. For example, I refuse to employ the services or quack doctors. I won't do it.] I find such views despicable. But I find equally despicable, the desire of some to abscond with a sovereignty that is not theirs in order to create the illusion of a morality that does not exist.
Let's dispense with the ad hominem and discuss on the merits.
BTW Heather, this is Dave. And I agree, Mental Vacuum is apt, though we may disagree on why it is apt. A mental vacuum has room for, indeed it draws in new thoughts and ideas. A mental plenum on the other hand has no room for anything other than what it already has.