Thursday, May 20, 2010

Shun the outsider!

I accidentally caught part of Fox News Special Report tonight, and watched with a tinge of nausea as Kristol and Krauthammer cheerfully shivved Rand Paul in the liver over his comments on the applicability of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private business owners.

They were barely able to conceal their glee as they clucked their tongues in mock concern over the libertarian loose cannon who had dared to win a GOP primary without being anointed by the inner sanctum.

I'm reminded why I don't watch Fox.


(For the record, I'm all in favor of letting idiots showcase their prejudices. It helps prevent me from accidentally spending money with someone whose pockets I'd rather not line.)

34 comments:

George said...

And, the White House criticizes FOX, which in spite of the ocassional stupid remark, is closer to Constitutional libertarians than any other network. I heard Meagan Kelly call Times Square the 'center of the universe', the other day. AT least they still have Beck, and do more honest reporting on the Tea Party movement, than anyone else.

PeaceableGuy said...

Private property rights are the basis of ALL rights. If you can't own anything (to include your self/body), you have no means to exercise a right and thus have no rights at all.

This logic is elementary and was central to the foundation of the United States, and yet the "intellectual" airheads keep keening on and on about 'oh nooooes, racism baaad, need law, it's like muuuurderrr'.

You have private property and freedom of association, or you have neither.

Divemedic said...

I certainly don't agree with attacking Paul with 'racism' charges- to me that is a larger transgression than Godwin's Law. Perhaps we can call it dive's law:

"In any debate, argument, or discussion, as a person's argument becomes weaker, the probability of them charging their opponent with racism approaches one."

@ PGuy:
When you open your property to the public, the members of that public enter the property with rights attached to them. Property rights are not absolute in that they do not override the rights of the people who enter your property. Otherwise, you could rape anyone on your property, and claim that you had the right to do so, because they were on your property. Wanna discriminate? Don't open your property to the public, then you can exclude all the people you want.

With that being said, there is nothing in the constitution that grants the FedGov the power to regulate this, it should be done by the states.

Lewis said...

Divemedic:

I think you missed the part where PG wrote about property rights "to include your self/body." Your analogy about being able to rape people entering your property seems to overlook that part.

Stranger said...

As a sometimes outsider who often looked in, most "civil rights laws" have slowed the process of assimilation.

And the Democrats have been in front of the bus, digging their heels in and yelling never.

Bruce Bartlett's book "Wrong on Race" makes a pleasant enough two hour read, and it lays out in detail most of the reasons we have made no more progress than we have. Kristol and Krauthammer are two of the reasons.

Stranger

Ken said...

This is what comes of having feelings instead of a philosophy.

And no, I'm not an Objectivist; I got my wookie suit by way of Lord Acton, not Hank Rearden (I will allow that reading Atlas Shrugged amply repaid my time and effort, and I can respect the Objectivist position, but I'm still not an Objectivist).

Boat Guy said...

Taranto has a pretty good piece up front on the WSJ's "Best of the Web" about the Rand Paul "kerfluffle".

Robert said...

What struck me was that they kept using the word "libertarian" about every 5 seconds.

Anonymous said...

And the news media dare not report what the crazy said? I say, I say, that Rand fella sounds like one dem dare Lost Causers, I say, I say, I doooo declare.

Libertarians are to enjoy some sort of immunity? Maybe Rational Smugity causes superpowers like looking into another's motives and is also a shield against criticism from crazy Rational Smugity statements?

Run, Rand, run! Apparently Rand is running hard from his own position. Look at the Wookie fur fly.

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

"I say, I say, that Rand fella sounds like one dem dare Lost Causers, I say, I say, I doooo declare."

I say, I say "bullshit".

Tam said...

"Libertarians are to enjoy some sort of immunity?"

Further, nowhere did I state this.

What I did imply was that faux "conservatives" like Krauthammer and Kristol would rather see a Democrat win than have their own party subverted by pro-freedom outsiders.

This is the problem with the whole "work to change the GOP from within" tripe.

The national party would rather lose than change.

Will said...

"The national party would rather lose than change."

Yep, that's part of the human nature wiring. Resist changes. Frustrating when it gets in the way of moving in a good direction. Unfortunately, tends not to work well enough when we head for the dark side of the force. Oh, well...

Sure would be a boring world if we were all closer to perfect!

Anonymous said...

"I say, I say "bullshit"."

Not bullshit, this is exactly the argument the Klan and other Democrats were using against the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and 1964 (except it worked in the 1875 CRA).

"What I did imply was that faux "conservatives" like Krauthammer and Kristol would rather see a Democrat win than have their own party subverted by pro-freedom outsiders."

Conservatives? They are by no means conversatives, but it does show that Libertarians cannot take a punch in the real world.

As soon as this bong-hit philosophy of Mom's basement is put to the test, Rand turns and runs like a Wookie being shot at by stormtroopers.

Shootin' Buddy

Kristopher said...

Rand does need to learn some electioneering skills, Tam. His inexperience with dealing with gotchas is hurting him. They are setting the debate for him, and reveling in it.

The proper response to some biased reporter baiting him over affirmative action is to just say: "I am personally against bigotry". Give them NOTHING.

Don't let these monkeys bait you ... it's what they do for a living.

Tam said...

"As soon as this bong-hit philosophy of Mom's basement..."

Why don't you like freedom?

Does it scare you? Is that why you feel compelled to cover your unease with a veneer of ridicule?

Anonymous said...

Freedom? The freedom to savage others?

Who cares what I think. Is it not more proper to ask "why does Rand Paul hate Black people?" Why won't he let them into hotels and taverns?

Has anyone asked Wookie Boy about abolishing the poll tax and whether the feds are permitted to enforce its abolition against the states? I'll bet that one is a hoot.

How about the Anti-Klu Klux Klan laws? Can the feds tell the states not to terrorize Black people? How about private organizations? Can they be prohibited from terrorizing Black people in Randland?

Shootin' Buddy

wv: "nuter", yep, we thought so

Tam said...

"The freedom to savage others?"

You are the only one demanding the right to savage others here. Nobody else has advocated using an iota of force against anyone to create their wookietopia, only to be left alone.

Apparently you can't stand for that, as men must be perfected.

Lewis said...

Shootin' Buddy:

It seems odd to have to explain this to a grownup, but there are some things that ought to be done, but which ought not to be required by law.

I'd be interested in any evidence you have that Rand Paul, or his father, think black folk ought to be kept out of hotels or taverns. (Rachel Maddow and Joan Walsh don't count as evidence.)

Anonymous said...

Huge leap from I think business should be able to serve who they want to I hate black people.

Lets try this one:

I'm for a balanced budget means
we should feed on the souls of babies.

Might work at MSNBC but most other find that logic flawed.

Gerry

Ken said...

Is it not more proper to ask "why does Rand Paul hate Black people?" Why won't he let them into hotels and taverns?

Save some straw for the roof, why don'tcha? Rand Paul isn't doing any such. If there's actual evidence he would engage in or approve of such, let's see it.

Matt G said...

"Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!"

Anonymous said...

"You are the only one demanding the right to savage others here. Nobody else has advocated using an iota of force against anyone to create their wookietopia, only to be left alone."

Refusal to use force against Southern businesses allows them to savage the Blacks. A desire to abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aids and abets Blacks to be savaged by Southern public and private action.

"It seems odd to have to explain this to a grownup, but there are some things that ought to be done, but which ought not to be required by law."

Enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is required by law. It is not that Black ought to be protected, it is that is required to protect them against Southern privation.

"Save some straw for the roof, why don'tcha? Rand Paul isn't doing any such. If there's actual evidence he would engage in or approve of such, let's see it."

O.K., how about his desire to see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unconstitutional. This exact same property rights argument was put forth by the Klan, other Democrats (and Rand Paul) against the 1875 and 1964 Civil Rights Act.

If one advocates removal of legal protections against a group, does that make one pro or con that group?

Rand Paul is out of the basement and in the real world now. The phasers are not set on stun.

Shootin' Buddy

Tam said...

"If one advocates removal of legal protections against a group..."

Nobody is arguing "removing legal protections" for anybody. Save some straw for the roof.

I am interested in these "groups" you discuss. What rights does this "group" have that they don't possess as individuals?

LabRat said...

Refusal to use force against Southern businesses allows them to savage the Blacks. A desire to abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aids and abets Blacks to be savaged by Southern public and private action.

....

Enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is required by law. It is not that Black ought to be protected, it is that is required to protect them against Southern privation.

Northerners may presumably continue apace.

At the end of the day I think both Pauls are the libertarian equivalent of Marxists that can't figure out collective action can't and won't solve every kind of problem, because in the real world people are not constant rational actors responding purely to market forces. Bigotry is inevitably economically damaging to its possessor, yet bigotry in varying flavors is also a human constant.

However, your insistence on re-fighting the Civil War in Tam and Roberta's comment boxes is getting intriguing.

staghounds said...

Mr. Paul does need some electioneering skills. As I always tell witnesses, they can ask the question, but you get to give your answer.

"I can't imagine why you want to ask me about things that happened 56 years ago, before I was even born. What's next, Dred Scott? The Peace of Westphalia?

I'm running for congress now,in 2010, and I will be happy to answer questions about the current millenium."

Ken said...

Enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is required by law.

"Because I say so" might work if the person saying so has enough guns. Does the fact that it is a matter of statute bind one in conscience to obey it -- beyond that, to agree that it is a good thing, as you appear to be implying? Do all statute laws likewise bind in conscience?

If not, which do, and which don't, and what criteria apply to the choice? The ones "their side" or "our side" passed?

Personally, I would not care to do business with someone who discriminated on that basis, but suppose I did: does that make it the business of the State? Give a guy a badge and a flag and a seal, and he becomes God's gorram anointed?

Anonymous said...

Shooting Buddy,

Logic is flawed again.

Your confusing one group who is against the intent of the civil rights act with another group who is against the consequences of the law.


Gerry

Kristopher said...

Gerry: How does one feed on the souls of babies?

I though souls were religious figments.

Do you put the baby in some kind of floor diagram, and chant and light candles?

As long as the baby isn't physically harmed, and the mother paid off, I haven't a problem with this.

LabRat said...

What's interesting is that we do still have the argument of principle, we just don't necessarily recognize it from one case to another. A bit back there was a case here in NM about whether a photographer could refuse to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony. As it happens, the court decided she had to if the money was offered based on the same logic the Civil Rights Act is constructed on.

Now, I happen to believe the CRA was and is necessary; it's tough to make a free-market argument in small communities where the alternative market does not exist, which was that case in way too many places where it was effectively impossible for a black person to travel and find lodging.

However, the question of "can the government obligate one person to work for another against their will" is a really interesting one.

Just not one that Rand Paul should have decided to ruminate upon on national television whilst attempting to become the Republican senator from Kentucky, in context of one of our most nationally beloved pieces of civil rights legislation. Dumbass.

Ken said...

If the State can legitimately oblige one to do business (i.e., sell) to someone with whom one would prefer not to do business (for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, group-identity peawittery being one of the worst)...

...it is not much of a leap to argue that the State can oblige one to do business (i.e., buy) with someone with whom one would rather not do business: even when one would rather do no business at all.

So when one excoriates the individual mandate in Obamacare, remember that the CRA, well-intended as it was, helped make it possible.

Britt said...

SB seems to think the South hasn't changed at all since 1960. Needless to say, he's wrong. Had lunch today at a restaurant in Rocky Mount NC. White and black folks sat together, no problems at all. King was wrong, love doesn't bring people together, all you can eat barbecue, fried chicken, and four different kinds of cobbler brings people together.

The real question is if we repealed the private business sections of the CRA, would the Whites Only signs go back up? I don't think so. I do know that it was government interference in the free market that led to segregated buses and streetcars. I know that any restaurant that tried to be whites only would quickly go out of business, because there is no market where that kind of restaurant could be profitable.

LabRat said...

I know that any restaurant that tried to be whites only would quickly go out of business, because there is no market where that kind of restaurant could be profitable.

But, there were, and they did. Whites-only in a small town? No. Whites only in a poor or working-class neighborhood? No. Whites only in a downtown restaurant in a reasonably affluent district? Absolutely.

The relationship of blacks to whites in the segregation-era South was a lot more complicated than SB makes out, but it was possibly best summed up in the British "God bless the king and his relations, and keep us in our proper stations." The proper station for blacks was NOT sitting right next to well-off white folk like they were equal.

the pistolero said...

The relationship of blacks to whites in the segregation-era South was a lot more complicated than SB makes out

And the modern relationship between the two races is probably every bit as complicated, if not more so. (No doubt there are many black, brown and yellow restaurateurs would also restrict their clientele to their own race as well.) But then I guess it's a lot easier to do one's Foghorn Leghorn impression and make half-witted cracks about Lost Causers than to examine that dynamic. But I'm just a Texan, and therefore a closet racist according to a certain poster here, so what the hell do I know, right? I'm obviously trying to justify my bigotry with my flowery rhetoric. Yeah, that must be it.

John B said...

"The freedom to savage others?"

Bubie, I keep coming to this blog specifically FOR the savaging.