[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

What defines 'mandatory segregation' if it is implied?

"Jim Crow" laws used to require separate facilities for the races. In many parts of the south blacks had to have their own hospitals, schools, restaurants, grocery stores, and they often had to use black-only public transportation - all of which was mandated by law. A restaurant that served blacks and whites in the same dining room was subject to a fine or, more likely, subject to being burnt to the ground while the police watched.

Now, in the absence of discrimination against minorities, we have discrimination against whites because the law overreached. So far from addressing bigotry we simply replaced one unfairness with another.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It's called residual powers. In Canada residual powers rest with the federal government; in teh US they rest with the State.

Yes but if the State doesn't 'state' anything, it's the people's right. From what I understand.
Here in Canada it's the section 91-92 that defines those government powers. That's not the same thing in the US. Whatever is not written by a state law is "to the people". At least, that's what I understand of their constitution.

$1:

As the constitution says that there is not role for the federal government to get into the business of the private companies, then that Act is against what he thinks. He would want that each state decides if discrimination is legal or not. That's not racist. It's ideological that the federal government should do what the constitution intended it to do.

$1:

It's not that simple though. Anything the federal government does--even if solely within its purview constitutionally--will affect private interests.

Yes, that I understand. But, I think this guy is more a "constitutional activist" than a libertarian or anarchist.

[Proculation]

(by re-reading myself, it seems I understand a lot of things (or I attempt to) )

[Scape]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

What defines 'mandatory segregation' if it is implied?

"Jim Crow" laws used to require separate facilities for the races.

What Paul is trying to stake out here is that the feds should never have the right to establish Jim Crow but it could not be able to establish ACR either. That's fence sitting policy wise and unrealistic as we both know that there would be a force to revert back segregation. You could call it 'market forces' but we both know that would just a youthism for intolerance. Absence of a law here is akin to support for segregation.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

What Paul is trying to stake out here is that the feds should never have the right to establish Jim Crow but it could not be able to establish ACR either. That's fence sitting policy wise and unrealistic as we both know that there would be a force to revert back segregation. You could call it 'market forces' but we both know that would just a youthism for intolerance. Absence of a law here is akin to support for segregation.

The thing is we have private institutions in the US that are exclusive to one race already. Across the US there's several colleges that are black-only and Native American only. The problem these colleges have is an acute lack of white and Asian alumni to support them. Which is kind of funny.

So since the 1964 Civil Rights Act apparently didn't end racial discrimination at THESE colleges, why then does it apply to colleges that might want to be white-only?

What Paul is saying is for the Feds to neither prohibit a private institution from selecting their clientele - as is supposedly allowed in the First Amendment - nor mandating they select their clientele.

Really, if I want a private club for Irish-only why is the government compelled to force me to admit everyone else?

[Proculation]

I don't agree with you Bart.

What I think Rand Paul wants to say is that it is the State's role to pass those laws, not the Federal.

My understanding is that every state would pass a law against discrimination in private businesses. We are not in 1960 anymore. Racism is over. But that it's not the federal role to apply those laws.

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

I don't agree with you Bart.

What I think Rand Paul wants to say is that it is the State's role to pass those laws, not the Federal.

My understanding is that every state would pass a law against discrimination in private businesses. We are not in 1960 anymore. Racism is over. But that it's not the federal role to apply those laws.

Then I guess I would disagree with Paul. The Federal government should protect individual rights from abuse or discrimination at the hands of the state government just the same as the state should protect the individual from potential Federal abuse.

But the role of government needs to end at the front door of my home and at the front door of my private institution.

Like I proposed, if I want an Irish-only club why is it the role of government to force me to accept anyone else? I thkn this is where Paul is going that government needs to dial in their control of society.

[Proculation]

You told me that the 10th amendment greeted power to the people if it was not prohibited by the state.

So you think that a state should not make a law against discrimination ?

[Scape]

It's like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act here in BC where in Ontario they have none. Such a law is a safeguard and without any law you can have abuse like State farm insurance.

What would happen if the Fed law was struck down would make a massive loophole because no one state would have the exact same version and would be subject to exploit.

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

You told me that the 10th amendment greeted power to the people if it was not prohibited by the state.

So you think that a state should not make a law against discrimination ?

I think the government should not discriminate against anyone and that the government should neither mandate (as they used to) or prohibit most discrimination in private institutions (bear in mind that the government allows black and Native American colleges to exclude anyone else).

Now when I say 'private institution' that can be very narrowly defined as any organization that does not accept tax dollars in any way, shape, or form.

So if I have a private college that is 100% privately funded by non-tax-deductible donations then I should be allowed to pick who I want as employees or students.

That also means that I would revoke the non-profit and tax-exempt status of any institution that does discriminate, such as any 'historically black college'.

[Lemmy]

What I see is that Rand is just not nearly as smart as dad. Rand is like most Randians (and Rand wasn't named after Ayn Rand, btw), he misinterprets her. Ron is a classic liberal. He makes a lot of sense to me. Sure, Ron's a bit of a Redneck, but he's lucid and logical in his speaking and a lot of his policy ideas have a ton of merit. Sonny, however, seems to bring a "meanness" with him, and that comes through in MOST interviews I've seen with him, not just the subject of this thread.

I don't think he said anything specifically racist, but it was stupid and mean.

[Scape]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Now when I say 'private institution' that can be very narrowly defined as any organization that does not accept tax dollars in any way, shape, or form.

So if I have a private college that is 100% privately funded by non-tax-deductible donations then I should be allowed to pick who I want as employees or students.

That also means that I would revoke the non-profit and tax-exempt status of any institution that does discriminate, such as any 'historically black college'.

If public funds shouldn't go to businesses that discriminate, here are some other places that public funds shouldn't go.

Public funds shouldn't go to build roads that lead to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to supply water to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give business loans to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to educate people who will own private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give police protection to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide sewer services to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide the power lines that supply private businesses that discriminate.

So, if a private business can manage to operate without water, roads, electricity etc..., then by all means, they can discriminate all they want to. Till then, your living in wonderland Bart.

[tritium]

Scape Scape:

If public funds shouldn't go to businesses that discriminate, here are some other places that public funds shouldn't go.

Public funds shouldn't go to build roads that lead to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to supply water to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give business loans to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to educate people who will own private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give police protection to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide sewer services to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide the power lines that supply private businesses that discriminate.

So, if a private business can manage to operate without water, roads, electricity etc..., then by all means, they can discriminate all they want to. Till then, your living in wonderland Bart.

Don't you have to take your white bed sheet to the dry cleaners Bart.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Scape Scape:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Now when I say 'private institution' that can be very narrowly defined as any organization that does not accept tax dollars in any way, shape, or form.

So if I have a private college that is 100% privately funded by non-tax-deductible donations then I should be allowed to pick who I want as employees or students.

That also means that I would revoke the non-profit and tax-exempt status of any institution that does discriminate, such as any 'historically black college'.

If public funds shouldn't go to businesses that discriminate, here are some other places that public funds shouldn't go.

Public funds shouldn't go to build roads that lead to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to supply water to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give business loans to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to educate people who will own private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to give police protection to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide sewer services to private businesses that discriminate.
Public funds shouldn't go to provide the power lines that supply private businesses that discriminate.

So, if a private business can manage to operate without water, roads, electricity etc..., then by all means, they can discriminate all they want to. Till then, your living in wonderland Bart.

Well THAT would cause the closure of a HELL of a lot of golf and country clubs

[N_Fiddledog]

When you cut all the crap away, this is what it's really all about...

$1:

The end of the liberal-libertarian romance

Dan Balz and Krissah Thompson have a (final?) take on the fallout of Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul's comments about whether all the provisions of the Civil Rights Act are necessary; Greg Sargent got Paul's campaign to say that the candidate did not really oppose government action to prevent discrimination in private businesses.

But we're not done with the fallout here. As I noted last night on Hardball, Paul's campaign was surprised and unhappy that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow drilled him so hard on the civil rights issue -- something that was obvious when Paul sarcastically thanked Maddow for a brutal introductory video, clipping together all of his quotes on the CRA. Normally, it wouldn't be news that a Republican candidate was annoyed by Rachel Maddow. But Rand Paul and his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), had been welcome on Maddow's show, where they'd happily light into mainstream Republicans. Before the younger Paul became a Senate nominee, he was an emissary for a brand of Republican politics less threatening than the Dick Cheney kind -- anti-Fed, anti-war, pro-drug legalization. (Paul is not personally pro-drug legalization, but many of his supporters are.) After he won the nomination, it was open season on his more extreme politics.

We saw this happen in 2008 with Ron Paul. In December 2007, the New Republic ran a piece on Paul by Tucker Carlson, the most glowing of several fun pieces it ran about him. Weeks later, the magazine ran an exposé by Jamie Kirchick of racist passages in newsletters that went out under Paul's name. "If you are a critic of the Bush administration," Kirchick wrote at the top of his article, "chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you." Hint, hint -- it was fun to indulge the libertarians for a while, but the time had come for good liberals to take them seriously.

I think Rand Paul has been whipsawed by the literally overnight shift in his coverage -- from "check out this exciting insurgent candidate" to "will this insurgent candidate destroy the Republic?" It's not a shift I plan to undergo, but it's one that will, I'm told, keep Paul from accepting invitations to Maddow's show for the foreseeable future.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... berta.html