Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 12:43 am UTC

deleted
Last edited by lesliesage on Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Nordic Einar » Sat May 22, 2010 12:47 am UTC

I'm still watching the clip and reading the article linked, but I wanted to say this now; the entire time I thought leslie was cutely mocking the Ronpaul's libertarian (read: Randian) beliefs by referring to him as "Rand Paul". Turns out there's a Kentucky senator by that name. Huh.

I was thoroughly amused.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 12:51 am UTC

For the record, I am cute and do mock. But Rand Paul (the Ronpaul's aptly named son) is but an aspiring senator; hopefully he won't make it to DC.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Gelsamel » Sat May 22, 2010 1:12 am UTC

How did you managed to define freedom in a way that it absolutely isn't? "Freedom is when you can't do certain things" what?

Anyway I think the biggest issue with allowing private institutions to discriminate is that smaller towns out in the country won't really have the option of boycotting or speaking out to fix a company not catering to black people, but in the city there'll always be someone who will take the money the other guy is forcing out of his business and if people who aren't bigots speak out it's much more likely in big cities that a bigoted company will change to fit public demand and maximise profits. When you're the only X in town for 100s of kilometers though...
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 1:18 am UTC

deleted
Last edited by lesliesage on Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:28 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

portentum
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:35 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby portentum » Sat May 22, 2010 1:29 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:Rand Paul says companies -- that get water via public pipes, goods via public roads, whose property is protected by public police, whose wealth is protected by public regulation, whose employees were educated in public schools, and whose toilets flush into public sewers -- should be able to turn away black people who paid tax for those things. He is wrong. The privilege of capitalizing on public institutions and infrastructure brings the responsibility of nondiscrimination. Private businesses are merely renters of public treasures.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. You do all of those same things with your home, should you not be allowed to say who has access to your home because you use these "public treasures"?

Maybe there's something I'm missing and there's a good reason someone who owns a business shouldn't be allowed to say who is and is not going to be their customer. I'm not seeing it in your post. Enlighten me.

I would like to note, however, that I'm not really in favor of what he's proposing. I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, as I'm of two minds about all this myself.
Last edited by portentum on Sat May 22, 2010 1:37 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Gelsamel » Sat May 22, 2010 1:32 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:How did you managed to define freedom in a way that it absolutely isn't? "Freedom is when you can't do certain things" what?
No, part of "freedom" is when certain things can't be done to you. If you think that discrimination doesn't "do" anything to you, you are wrong.


I think you're thinking of rights, not freedom. There is no freedom to not be insulted, not be descriminated against. Societies, however, often establish the right to not descriminate in order to make things a bit more equal. Anyway what do you think of the actual substance of my post?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 1:39 am UTC

nectarine
Last edited by lesliesage on Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

portentum
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 3:35 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby portentum » Sat May 22, 2010 1:44 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:Portentum, you don't really know what you're talking about. The issue at hand involves commerce, employment, and publicly offered services. You can do what you like in your own home, but if you own a hospital or a cafe, you can't discriminate in hiring or patronage.

Right, you're stating the present situation. You aren't saying why someone should not be able to do this.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Gelsamel » Sat May 22, 2010 1:48 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:Freedom is when people can't control your religion.


No, freedom is the freedom to choose and do stuff that you want to do. So freedom is the freedom to have any religion. This means we need the right to religion to ensure that the freedom isn't infringed.

It's when people can't be kicked you out of school for being a minority. It's when people can't seize your property without due process. It's when people can't make you pay you to vote. It's when people can't pollute the water you drink. It's when people can't fire you for being a woman or in a wheelchair or gay or black.


None of these have anything to do with freedom, they have to do with being fair and treating everyone equally. The only time when these relate to freedom is when there is no other school that will take you, or if there is no other water you can drink or there is no other place to work.

Freedom isn't just about what you get to do to other people; it's also freedom from things that others would do to you, and that includes being excluded from participating in society and commerce like anyone else.


There are no "freedoms from" the only things that could vaguely be described as that would be the freedom to not choose a something a certain way.

You lack imagination if you think the only problem would be some small town shops. There's discrimination everywhere, all the time. Thankfully, it's illegal, and people can seek redress in our public courts.


I know discrimination is everywhere, but my problem with small towns is that people don't have the choice to go other places... they don't have the choice to use their free speech and their money to punish those discriminatory companies. Whereas in the large cities they do. This relates back to what I said above... if the place that is discriminating is the only place you can go then that is a denying a means to a choice. If there are many other places you can reasonably access, however, then no choice is infringed on.
Last edited by Gelsamel on Sat May 22, 2010 1:52 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Aetius » Sat May 22, 2010 1:51 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:I edited my post late. But I reiterate that part of freedom is being free from deleterious actions by others.


I think this sentence illustrates how, unlikely as it seems, this issue has zero to do with race, and has everything to do with the perception of private enterprise. It's the difference between seeing the absence of a business as the default (in which case the services of the business are a positive gain that would not exist without the business owner, and thus no one can be entitled to), and seeing the presence of the business as a default (in which case denial of services is a negative, and a deprivation of something the customer would otherwise be entitled to). Where you fall on that issue pretty much determines how you feel about the issue Paul was discussing.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 2:19 am UTC

deleted
Last edited by lesliesage on Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Gelsamel » Sat May 22, 2010 2:29 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:All hilarious. Tell a black person that so long as they can shine shoes, they're free in our society.



Strawman less,maybe? A person is free if they are able to apply to the job they want without being discriminated against. If one company discriminates on that position but another, within reasonable reach doesn't then they are able to apply without being discriminated against.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat May 22, 2010 2:31 am UTC

Rand Paul says companies -- that get water via public pipes, goods via public roads, whose property is protected by public police, whose wealth is protected by public regulation, whose employees were educated in public schools, and whose toilets flush into public sewers -- should be able to turn away black people who paid tax for those things. He is wrong. The privilege of capitalizing on public institutions and infrastructure brings the responsibility of nondiscrimination. Private businesses are merely renters of public treasures.


Who pays the taxes that fund the public education, schools, sewers? Cough business owners Cough

His solution to this conundrum is to privatize those pipes, those roads, those safety services, those schools, those sewers, and to hope for the best with unregulated banks. Rand Paul thinks "liberty" means that a rich person could buy any of our public jewels to do with as they please: that "freedom" is a nation where one single business-owner could deny millions the ability to equally participate in American society. No. "Freedom" is a nation where that could never even potentially happen. Rand Paul says he doesn't want that to happen, but he thinks it'd be better if it could happen. He thinks that sounds super free.


Funny thing about economics, if anyone actually tried to run a large scale business and only cater to a small part of the population they would have a hell of a time staying in business. Because the United States protects civil rights, if one company starts refusing to sell a product to blacks; another company will open up to cater to the neglected market. I have some disagreements about how far things should be privatized(depending on if he wants truly private schools or just charters) but your delusion that free markets are a work of evil is rather disturbing.

Rand Paul makes the argument that it's a form of political speech for a private business to discriminate. Of course it is, but we don't actually have unfettered freedom of speech. It's also a political statement to lynch people, to vandalize homes, to burn churches. You're not allowed to do that either, because it fucks up other people's lives. Well, it would also fuck up people's lives if one single hospital in rural Mississippi decided they wouldn't serve black people, if a town's grocery stores wouldn't serve gays, if an energy company wouldn't serve unmarried women. That's why we have laws against this, which do indeed trump the political speech of those business owners.


You seem to miss the difference between negative and positive rights; there is a difference between refusing to serve blacks and assault. Lynching are banned because they are an infringement on the fundamental right to life/safety; there isn't a fundamental right to shop at a grocery store.

I'm playing some serious devil's advocate today.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Aetius » Sat May 22, 2010 2:51 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:This is a very good point. Has there ever been a time or place in all of civilization that did not have commerce? Of course the presence of business is default.


Commerce as a whole? Yes. A specific business? Perhaps not. I think Rand's point becomes more valid the larger the market is and the more competition is inherent in it. Which is why most of the counter arguments give examples about small towns with large distances between businesses.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby lesliesage » Sat May 22, 2010 3:07 am UTC

puzzle
Last edited by lesliesage on Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 4:27 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:
@Aetius So what's your point? That entire towns should be able to economically run out of town the blacks and gays and Mexicans and atheists and the disabled since the free market will most likely find them homes in cities? The free market would offer minorities more pricey commerce and accommodation if the demand from them is greater, made so by the limit of supply to minorities. How elegant.


And considering that you sort of need a government business license to conduct business... You know, so it's not exactly the same as living in a house. After all, you're not exactly pushing a product for sale out the back door.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Aetius » Sat May 22, 2010 5:11 am UTC

lesliesage wrote:@Aetius So what's your point? That entire towns should be able to economically run out of town the blacks and gays and Mexicans and atheists and the disabled since the free market will most likely find them homes in cities? The free market would offer minorities more pricey commerce and accommodation if the demand from them is greater, made so by the limit of supply to minorities. How elegant.


My point is that in a small market, necessities can be controlled by a small number (or single) supplier and thus their decisions directly control the destinies of others. In a large market, market forces are allowed to be put into play (the relevant one in this case being that non-discriminatory businesses have a competitive advantage over discriminatory ones), and no single (or even group) of suppliers can distort the market to their liking.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 5:25 am UTC

Aetius wrote:
lesliesage wrote:@Aetius So what's your point? That entire towns should be able to economically run out of town the blacks and gays and Mexicans and atheists and the disabled since the free market will most likely find them homes in cities? The free market would offer minorities more pricey commerce and accommodation if the demand from them is greater, made so by the limit of supply to minorities. How elegant.


My point is that in a small market, necessities can be controlled by a small number (or single) supplier and thus their decisions directly control the destinies of others. In a large market, market forces are allowed to be put into play (the relevant one in this case being that non-discriminatory businesses have a competitive advantage over discriminatory ones), and no single (or even group) of suppliers can distort the market to their liking.

Which still means minorities will be forced to live in cities if they wish to fully enjoy services. I fail to see how discriminatory businesses are going to be much affected in a place like Itawamba, Mississippi.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby folkhero » Sat May 22, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Question for the forum: What do you think of women's only gyms and health clubs? Men's only country clubs?
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Silknor » Sat May 22, 2010 6:02 am UTC

I may not agree with Rand Paul's view about either the utility or constitutionality of the sections of the Civil Rights Act pertaining to discrimination by private places of accomodation, but I think it's worth understanding what he's saying since it's an interesting argument.

The link between discrimination and free speech is actually through the right the courts consider closely related to free speech: freedom of association. This is the right that lets the Boy Scouts for example choose to exclude gay Scoutmasters (see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale) and private clubs to exclude those who do not fit their membership criteria (see Moose Lodge v. Irvis, in this case excluding everyone but white male religious Caucasians). The view that the freedom of association and freedom to have property allows business owners to exclude certain individuals from their lawfully acquired property despite the fact that their establishment affects interstate commerce is not an inherently unreasonable one. It is simply a claim that prioritizes certain rights the court has held fundamental over the power of Congress to regulate things affecting interstate commerce. It is not the case as was implied earlier that there is an inherent constitutional right to shop at a store or eat at a diner regardless of the color of your skin, rather this right only exists as long as Congress says it does (to the best of my understanding).

I don't buy Paul's claim though that there wouldn't be successful businesses that discriminate. Likely now, and certainly in 1964, in some areas there are enough white people who want to or would be willing to eat among a homogeneous crowd that a whites-only establishment could succeed. It's sad but probably true that there are still areas of the country in which such a restaurant would draw significant condemnation from only outside its town.

Finally I have to agree with the point made earlier that your concept of freedom seems more like a positive right to equality, not something that would commonly be called liberty.

Folkhero: I can certainly understand the argument for all of those. I don't have any issue with women only health facilities. I may not want to belong to a men only country club but for a truly private club I think it should be legally acceptable to decide they want only men.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Korrente
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:44 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Korrente » Sat May 22, 2010 6:25 am UTC

I would apologize for my state voting him in, but I generally disown Kentucky anyway. He was elected with his "I'm gonna deregulate everything 'cause I'm a Reagan Republican!" crap, not to mention Sara Palin's 'support'. He has some how weaseled his way out of every condemning question anyone has brought up about his policies. Mostly he just complains that the news and the liberals are taking his statements out of context and trying to trick him. Although around here policies matter less than nice commercials...most people just flip the "Vote All" switch and go on their merry way.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby netcrusher88 » Sat May 22, 2010 6:31 am UTC

I think history shows us how well an unregulated market will force discriminatory businesses out: it didn't. An unregulated market never trends towards equality - it selects for traits and then exaggerates them, though the basic trait is rich. In a market segment where the clientèle displays a prejudice, it will select for discriminatory businesses, and those which discriminate towards a social majority will crowd out the others - first by reducing their income base, then by being suppliers (since clients select for discriminatory businesses, those businesses will select for discriminatory suppliers) which do the same at the next level up ad nauseum. And if market forces don't work, members of that majority who chose to run non-discriminatory businesses will be ostracized, assaulted, or even lynched (and minorities? let's not even go there), again exaggerating the trait.
folkhero wrote:Question for the forum: What do you think of women's only gyms and health clubs? Men's only country clubs?

Do the former even exist? I know there are places like Curves that specifically target women, but they can't exclude men.

As for the latter, I assume they work the same way as racially segregated country clubs. There is a private organization that limits membership based on [trait], and that organization owns the property. It's an interesting loophole and it doesn't always work. I think they get away with it using a combination of freedom to associate and the fact that the club property is not ostensibly open to the public, so it's not considered a regulated place of business under the Civil Rights Act.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 7:51 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
folkhero wrote:Question for the forum: What do you think of women's only gyms and health clubs? Men's only country clubs?

Do the former even exist? I know there are places like Curves that specifically target women, but they can't exclude men.

They do. And there is a certain rationale behind that segregation that has less to do with gender and more to do with a positive environment where they don't have to worry about the advances of men. Or something to that effect. There's a defense of them on feministe a long ways back that can probably be googled if you're really that interested.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Hawknc » Sat May 22, 2010 9:46 am UTC

Women-only gyms definitely exist here, e.g. Fernwood. Men's gyms don't to my knowledge, but male-only members' clubs do. The first I support wholeheartedly; the second, as men aren't a minority gender, I'm a little more conflicted on. A lot of power gets moved about in the clubs I'm thinking of, and the exclusion of women removes them from the ability to be part of that process.
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Indon » Sat May 22, 2010 12:26 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:You seem to miss the difference between negative and positive rights; there is a difference between refusing to serve blacks and assault. Lynching are banned because they are an infringement on the fundamental right to life/safety; there isn't a fundamental right to shop at a grocery store.

Why do people have a right to be protected from physical force, but don't have a right to be protected from non-physical force?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat May 22, 2010 1:55 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:Women-only gyms definitely exist here, e.g. Fernwood. Men's gyms don't to my knowledge, but male-only members' clubs do. The first I support wholeheartedly; the second, as men aren't a minority gender, I'm a little more conflicted on. A lot of power gets moved about in the clubs I'm thinking of, and the exclusion of women removes them from the ability to be part of that process.


I think men are a minority gender, or at least there are less men then women(yes semantic I know what you mean)


Why do people have a right to be protected from physical force, but don't have a right to be protected from non-physical force?


You have the fundamental right to safety in your person. However, a business has the right to operate by the model it see fit. If a business chooses to only cater to white people they are pretty much scum, but they aren't denying anyone a right. If we extend fundamental rights to the right to force a business owner to serve you, we are ranking the right to not be offended over the right to freedom of expression.

That being said, I do disagree with paul about the magnitude of deregulation that is a good idea. There are things such as education that I think should be far less centralized and allowed to have a greater amount of local control(charter schools and such) but there is definitely a federal role to ensure nondiscrimination and standards in schools.

As an aside, I think Paul is serving a very vital role in the republican party; actually creating a faction somewhere in the party system opposed to central authority. While I disagree with some of his policy, its a nice change from the republican party of government is evil unless we are banning evil liberal behavior.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Vaniver » Sat May 22, 2010 2:34 pm UTC

See, this would be remotely convincing if there were evidence that the American discrimination law were effective at increasing racial amity, and wasn't a transparent transfer from one readily identifiable group to another.

The full argument has several components:

1. Markets put a price on discrimination- if you don't serve gay customers, then you lose their business. If you pay blacks less than they're worth, they work for someone who is willing to pay them more than you. Discrimination to serve personal biases is under-competitive, and will be reduced by market forces (there's a stick). One interesting data point here is that businesses hired hundreds of black chemists as researchers before a single university hired a black chemist as a professor- the businesses had to deal with market forces, while universities and their faculty were mostly insulated from market forces.
2. Markets reward transactions, and trade with someone of a group you dislike will serve to reduce your animosity towards that group, as it gives you a positive experience with a member of that group (there's a carrot). Historically, commercial cities were the most racially diverse and accepting of their time.
3. Laws that ban discrimination other than that what the law stipulates do put a price on discrimination- but now the price is on getting caught, not on discriminating. The stick is now pointed at overt discrimination and honesty; a factory which says that no Irish need apply now just manages to find a hiring process that mostly excludes the Irish, and wastes the time of those that do apply. As well, places that did not discriminate are struck by a stick if they do not start discriminating- instead of just having a color-blind process, you need to be able to convince a judge that the results of your process do not exclude any minorities.
4. The animosities that discrimination excites among caring people are now directed not at racists but at the recipients of discriminatory policies- but since it's not clear who got hired because of their race and who got hired because of their qualifications, all members of the minority now have the very real specter of 'tokenism' hanging over their heads. Remember the New Haven case, where a test was thrown out because none of the blacks who took it passed it, and the unpleasant characters who had build their careers around racemongering? How'd that help race relations? As well, any negative experiences reinforce racism: the slow clerk at the DMV who happens to be black makes you think that a white clerk would have been faster- while normally this would be confirmation bias, you laso have the actual fact that blacks are overrepresented in government, most likely due to 'equal opportunity' hiring policies.

Like Rand Paul, I don't like discrimination. It's inefficient, it's wasteful, it's harmful. Unlike you, I understand that "anti-discrimination" policies actually increase the amount of discrimination; that's why I don't like them.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5965
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat May 22, 2010 3:28 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:1. Markets put a price on discrimination- if you don't serve gay customers, then you lose their business. If you pay blacks less than they're worth, they work for someone who is willing to pay them more than you. Discrimination to serve personal biases is under-competitive, and will be reduced by market forces (there's a stick). One interesting data point here is that businesses hired hundreds of black chemists as researchers before a single university hired a black chemist as a professor- the businesses had to deal with market forces, while universities and their faculty were mostly insulated from market forces.


Say the community that you have your bar in is highly racist. You might actually benefit from not serving people of colour because the majority white population has more spending power and would not attend, or would attend in fewer numbers, if you were non discriminatory.

I also think that you have mistaken the goal of the legislation in question. Its not about making white people feel better about people of colour, its about preventing discrimination.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat May 22, 2010 3:38 pm UTC

Say the community that you have your bar in is highly racist. You might actually benefit from not serving people of colour because the majority white population has more spending power and would not attend, or would attend in fewer numbers, if you were non discriminatory.


Are there actually any places that are simultaneously racist enough that not serving blacks would increase white business, but still have a small enough minority community it wouldn't be horribly prohibitive to ban them?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Vaniver » Sat May 22, 2010 4:00 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:Say the community that you have your bar in is highly racist. You might actually benefit from not serving people of colour because the majority white population has more spending power and would not attend, or would attend in fewer numbers, if you were non discriminatory.
Why is that a worse situation than the bar being forced to serve blacks? In what situations will the market not provide a bar targeted at, or willing to serve, blacks?

Should I be worried I only see Asians working at the Chinese restaurant? Or two thirds Hispanic, one third Asian at the fast food Chinese restaurant? Or Caribbeans working at the Jerk restaurant?

You mostly see gays at the gay bar (though I guess it's a bit harder to distinguish them than it is ethnicities), though I suspect that's only rarely an established policy.


I agree that laws should, inasmuch as they can, try to ensure that governments are not racist in thought or deed, because racist governments are a horrible thing to behold or live under. But our government is apparently incapable of being colorblind, or the populace as a whole is unwilling to ask it to be- and so instead we've traded trampling blacks for entitling them. Probably a positive tradeoff, but hardly a good stopping point.

jestingrabbit wrote:I also think that you have mistaken the goal of the legislation in question. Its not about making white people feel better about people of colour, its about preventing discrimination.
But, it's not about preventing discrimination. It's about elevating groups' percentages, which necessarily occurs at the expense of other groups' percentages. Which groups are [url=[url=http://www.opm.gov/About_OPM/Reports/FEORP/2008/feorp2008.pdf]]most overrepresented in the Federal Government?[/url]
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5965
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby jestingrabbit » Sat May 22, 2010 4:23 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
jestingrabbit wrote:Say the community that you have your bar in is highly racist. You might actually benefit from not serving people of colour because the majority white population has more spending power and would not attend, or would attend in fewer numbers, if you were non discriminatory.
Why is that a worse situation than the bar being forced to serve blacks? In what situations will the market not provide a bar targeted at, or willing to serve, blacks?


Because mixed race groups should have a place to drink. The existence of a black bar wouldn't resolve that issue.

Vaniver wrote:Should I be worried I only see Asians working at the Chinese restaurant? Or two thirds Hispanic, one third Asian at the fast food Chinese restaurant? Or Caribbeans working at the Jerk restaurant?

You mostly see gays at the gay bar (though I guess it's a bit harder to distinguish them than it is ethnicities), though I suspect that's only rarely an established policy.


A lot of small businesses are family businesses, and those that aren't often get new employees by word of mouth. The west is still largely socially segregated, and I think that explains what you're talking about without introducing any policy of bias.

Vaniver wrote:I agree that laws should, inasmuch as they can, try to ensure that governments are not racist in thought or deed, because racist governments are a horrible thing to behold or live under. But our government is apparently incapable of being colorblind, or the populace as a whole is unwilling to ask it to be- and so instead we've traded trampling blacks for entitling them. Probably a positive tradeoff, but hardly a good stopping point.

jestingrabbit wrote:I also think that you have mistaken the goal of the legislation in question. Its not about making white people feel better about people of colour, its about preventing discrimination.
But, it's not about preventing discrimination. It's about elevating groups' percentages, which necessarily occurs at the expense of other groups' percentages. Which groups are [url=[url=http://www.opm.gov/About_OPM/Reports/FEORP/2008/feorp2008.pdf]]most overrepresented in the Federal Government?[/url]


I think that a goal of being colour blind in a world that is so far from that state is misguided. Are government jobs the most prized or are they not that great?

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Say the community that you have your bar in is highly racist. You might actually benefit from not serving people of colour because the majority white population has more spending power and would not attend, or would attend in fewer numbers, if you were non discriminatory.


Are there actually any places that are simultaneously racist enough that not serving blacks would increase white business, but still have a small enough minority community it wouldn't be horribly prohibitive to ban them?


I think there are still plenty of sundown towns out there.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

*bird
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:14 pm UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby *bird » Sat May 22, 2010 6:32 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Rand Paul says companies -- that get water via public pipes, goods via public roads, whose property is protected by public police, whose wealth is protected by public regulation, whose employees were educated in public schools, and whose toilets flush into public sewers -- should be able to turn away black people who paid tax for those things. He is wrong. The privilege of capitalizing on public institutions and infrastructure brings the responsibility of nondiscrimination. Private businesses are merely renters of public treasures.


Who pays the taxes that fund the public education, schools, sewers? Cough business owners Cough


Actually, for public education it's less likely that large business owners would do so, since they're mostly set up in a district that wouldn't have a lot of residences in it.

But the point is moot. It's not _only_ business owners who do these things, private taxpayers also pay tax in the form of income, sales and property taxes so they should be able to benefit as well.

mmmcannibalism wrote:Funny thing about economics, if anyone actually tried to run a large scale business and only cater to a small part of the population they would have a hell of a time staying in business. Because the United States protects civil rights, if one company starts refusing to sell a product to blacks; another company will open up to cater to the neglected market. I have some disagreements about how far things should be privatized(depending on if he wants truly private schools or just charters) but your delusion that free markets are a work of evil is rather disturbing.


If a company refuses to sell to black people (of course then there'll be the mad scramble to determine who's black or not and it'll be way more complicated than it was 50 years ago) they'll most likely also refuse to do business with businesses that do sell to black people. So you'll end up with two infrastructures: one that sells openly and one that sells restrictively.

But it's not a given that the one that sells openly would automatically be better off. The one that sells restrictively may have a local monopoly on the type of goods that the open company needs and the open company may have to add import expenses to get the goods and services that they need to run.

mmmcannibalism wrote:You seem to miss the difference between negative and positive rights; there is a difference between refusing to serve blacks and assault. Lynching are banned because they are an infringement on the fundamental right to life/safety; there isn't a fundamental right to shop at a grocery store.


Not even if you would starve by doing so? "Oh, you can get your groceries, but the only place that would cater to you is 100 miles away."

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat May 22, 2010 7:47 pm UTC

But it's not a given that the one that sells openly would automatically be better off. The one that sells restrictively may have a local monopoly on the type of goods that the open company needs and the open company may have to add import expenses to get the goods and services that they need to run.


Which is something I agree on, if we are talking about a very small local economy its possible that a racist business could actually be harmful to minorities. However, if we get to the level of a small city; there will always be businesses quite willing to take the profit available by selling to a third of the population.

Not even if you would starve by doing so? "Oh, you can get your groceries, but the only place that would cater to you is 100 miles away."


If I see a starving person am I obligated to go buy food for them?
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 10:37 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Which is something I agree on, if we are talking about a very small local economy its possible that a racist business could actually be harmful to minorities. However, if we get to the level of a small city; there will always be businesses quite willing to take the profit available by selling to a third of the population.

So where is the freedom in, if you're a minority you can only live in a city as it will be the only location with businesses that might serve you? Even though, living in a city will either increase your chances of living in a slum or necessitating your spending more money on housing. Don't forget, if you want to travel you might just be fucked because the gas stations won't let you buy gas. Ergo, you'll need to bring a tanker truck on vacation.

So I'm not seeing where the argument of, "I know I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to keep going with it," is really working out here. You know, especially since we can see historically that even in larger economies the idea that racist establishments would be taken out by the market didn't pan out.

Though, the way I see it, the markets are also free to setup their shop in a different country with a constitution that allows for discrimination. So, you can see, if we really want to follow your logic, the shops can gtfo too.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Vaniver » Sat May 22, 2010 10:47 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:So I'm not seeing where the argument of, "I know I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to keep going with it," is really working out here. You know, especially since we can see historically that even in larger economies the idea that racist establishments would be taken out by the market didn't pan out.
The evidence is that governments are much more willing and able to segregate than markets are, and when markets want to be desegregated and governments want them to be segregated, the governments win.

Indeed, the best thing that happened to most blacks was the ability to escape the South, not laws that "prevented" people from discriminating against them. I'd be much happier with a general relocation fund designed at helping people move from a place they don't like to a place they think they would like more than a law against freedom of association.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Jahoclave » Sat May 22, 2010 11:01 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Jahoclave wrote:So I'm not seeing where the argument of, "I know I'm wrong about this, but I'm going to keep going with it," is really working out here. You know, especially since we can see historically that even in larger economies the idea that racist establishments would be taken out by the market didn't pan out.
The evidence is that governments are much more willing and able to segregate than markets are, and when markets want to be desegregated and governments want them to be segregated, the governments win.

Indeed, the best thing that happened to most blacks was the ability to escape the South, not laws that "prevented" people from discriminating against them. I'd be much happier with a general relocation fund designed at helping people move from a place they don't like to a place they think they would like more than a law against freedom of association.

Which is still segregation by a different name and is not freedom to live where one wants.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Vaniver » Sat May 22, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Which is still segregation by a different name and is not freedom to live where one wants.
When did that freedom come about? How is it consistent with private ownership of land?

I agree that the government should be nondiscriminatory and held to that as much as possible everywhere, because you have to deal with the government. But I don't think that's desirable or possible when considering the general populace. I don't think nepotism should be allowed in government, but I do think it should be allowed in private firms. I feel similarly, but with a stronger dislike, towards discrimination.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Aetius » Sat May 22, 2010 11:36 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:So where is the freedom in, if you're a minority you can only live in a city as it will be the only location with businesses that might serve you?


I think you're vastly overestimating the situations in this day and age in which a discriminatory business could or would successfully cut off minorities access to necessities.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Rand Paul, Rachel Maddow, Civil Rights, Libertarianism

Postby Silknor » Sat May 22, 2010 11:47 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote: You know, especially since we can see historically that even in larger economies the idea that racist establishments would be taken out by the market didn't pan out.


I don't think anyone is arguing contrary to this. The important part isn't that all racist establishments go out of business, it's that those discriminated against will still have adequate opportunities to shop, or rent housing, or eat out. In a large economy, most or every establishment discriminates against the same group, there is a major market opportunity for those willing to serve the minority group. This doesn't mean the government shouldn't take action to stop discrimination (I think it should) but rather that it's not critically important for government to take action to stop this type of discrimination in large markets with the sole goal of ensuring access to the market for minorities.

Though, the way I see it, the markets are also free to setup their shop in a different country with a constitution that allows for discrimination. So, you can see, if we really want to follow your logic, the shops can gtfo too.


The United States is such a country. Our constitution doesn't prevent a business from turning away black customers. (Obviously you can say that reflects a major gap in the constitution when it comes to the provision of individual rights). The reason you can't have a place of public accommodation that racially discriminates in who it serves isn't the 14th Amendment. The end to that kind of discrimination didn't come from any high-minded ideal embodied in the Constitution. It came from something far more mundane: the power of Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." That's why private clubs can discriminate in who they serve, because they aren't sufficiently connected to interstate commerce, not because the constitution only bans discrimination for businesses that serve the general public.

Vaniver: Do you think discrimination in hiring by private firms is different than discrimination in who they serve? From the point of view of freedom of association and the business owner's property rights and freedom of contract, I'm not sure where such a distinction could be drawn.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests