Saturday, May 22nd, 2010
- Dave Weigel defends Rand Paul. I’ll put up my take on all of this sometime this weekend.
- Five Virginia high school students charged with felony pornography for “sexting.” Prosecutor says the likelihood of them being convicted is the same “as the moon coming crashing down tomorrow.” So why charge them in the first place?
- Clemency board recommends release of 75-year-old prisoner, and for the right reasons—not out of mercy or belief that he has been rehabilitated, but because there are substantial questions about his guilt. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer denied the clemency, and refuses to say why.
- City of San Antonio bans the sale of non-diet soda on city property.
- Chicago’s homicide rate continues to soar. So Police Chief Jody Weiss has decided he’s no longer responsible for homicides committed indoors. Silly as this sounds, I actually think it’s a mistake to hold police commissioners responsible for the murder rate in general. I’m not convinced it’s something over which they have much control.
- Dirty Roman coins.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, May 22nd, 2010 at 7:10 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, Nanny State.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
Has anyone actually accused Paul of being a racist? I read pretty extensively in the left blogosphere and I haven’t seen it.
What’s obvious though is that Paul is nowhere near ready for prime time. Over the years, Paul has expressed many opinions that are outside the political mainstream. Didn’t he think that somebody would eventually ask him about them and that he should figure out what he’s going to say beforehand?
I did feel bad for Rand, having to struggle through that interview. Of course, I see his point. It is a very tough issue, and most people can’t possibly comprehend it without turning it into: “You’re Racist!”.
As for my own thoughts, I do think that overt private discrimination, based on factors that people are powerless to control, should be illegal in most cases. Here’s how I justify it to myself: Most private businesses do not function in a vaccuum. They do sit by public streets and walkways; they benefit from the traffic that they provide. They may use power provided by a public grid, and services provided by local public servants. I can see if someone had a private club or store on an island, where he can be allowed to discriminate based on race. But as long as there is some public factor that benefits his business even tangentially, he should not be allowed to discriminate.
This is more of a practical matter for me. The reason is that if everyone decided to get together and ban a certain group from private businesses, then the damage to the group can certainly be as great, if not greater than, governmental discrimination. If you combine that with a ‘free market’, monopolies allowed kind of business climate with open discrimination, what’s to stop a powerful group from taking cotrol of most private enterprise and systemicaly denied a group most basic enterprises their rights? I can certainly see a point where private groups become as powerful as, if not more powerful than the government. Come to think of it, this pretty much is the case now right?
I can see how this answer may not jibe with an absolute libertarian, but I don’t see myself as such; in the end I do believe in a few laws, to avoid the whole ‘well you just live in Somalia argument’.
All this is IMHO, and different opinions are welcome.
@Matt I.: Private clubs benefit from all those things too. By that logic, they shouldn’t be exempt. Why is it different just because one calls themselves a “private club” and the other a “store”? I want to play golf at the club a few miles from my house. They benefit from the public roads, police protection, etc. Why shouldn’t I be able to play a round, just because I’m not a “member”?
The “stores could band together to discriminate in a free market” argument is silly, IMO. First, do you actually think that in today’s society, that would be accepted by the general public? And second, in the free market, without government-sponsored monopolies and restrictions on entering the market, if I saw a market where Group X was being discriminated against and not allowed to use the facilities of whatever group of businesses were doing the discriminating, I’d be rushing as fast as possible to open a competing business that didn’t discriminate in such ways.
Rand Paul is running for public office. If he wants to have nuanced debates on the pros and cons of the 1964 civil rights act he ought to write a book or get a job as a political science professor (yeah right). A serious political campaign is no place for this. Its like trying to paint the sistine chapel with a paintball gun.
Re: Andrew S:
-The difference is that private clubs ostensibly don’t discriminate against you based on factors beyond your control. The ability to make money to pay dues being something most people have the power to change.
-Coming up with free market solutions to discrimination is fine by me, but would you be the person to say, open up the only tapas bar that caters to African Americans in Bismark, ND?
So why charge them in the first place?
I don’t know, is it an election year?
“Electoral cycles in the administration of criminal justice” by Andrew Dyke: http://www.springerlink.com/content/w3w1p39876236248/
From the link:
“If a man in a wheelchair can’t get into a restaurant, he can raise a fuss, his neighbors can join him, and the restaurant can build a ramp in order to get more business.”
This assumes, wrongly, that business owners are rational and neighbors are both unbiased and motivated to combat bias. Let’s change this paragraph to
“If a Black man can’t get into a restaurant, he can raise a fuss, his neighbors can join him, and the restaurant can be shamed into letting him eat there.”
How many white southerners would have done that of their own volition in 1964?
Police commissioners absolutely have an impact on the murder rate. They determine the department’s strategy for addressing crime which directly affects what happens on the streets. Weis may have a point about indoor homicides though.
I agree with others who suggest that this kind of philosophical debate specifically over the SRA does not belong in a campaign environment.
For me, the reason is that the SRA didn’t do any harm. It was not the slippery slope of government intervention into private business… that happened long ago.
And regardless of arguments that the marketplace would have eventually ended Jim Crow (I personally believe that it would have been another 20-30 years), it is unquestionable that the CRA expedited integration – giving our society a booster shot of individual liberty.
Besides, if one wants to argue against government intervention into our personal lives and property, I can think of about a million other areas more deserving of such arguments than a law – widely held as sacred – that forced businesses to allow people of a different color to sit and have lunch.
As libertarians, we have to choose our battles. And the CRA is a hill that cannot, and arguably should not, be taken.
Cheers.
Are they going to update the Roman Coins for used between Congresscritters and pages?
Yea, let’s let businesses discriminate based on race. But, before we do so, since these businesses don’t want to be held to government “regulation” of discrimination, let’s also remove the benefits they gained from government “regulation” of discriminated, when the law of the land was required discrimination. How many of these businesses would be white owned if we didn’t have a structure that was white supremest for so long?
Yea, you can be racist. But, first, we’re going to take all your land and property since you likely only required it as a function of government “regulation” and redistribute it equally. And, if your restaurant ends up being owned by black folks who don’t want white customers… well, that’s free enterprise, right?
This is the biggest flaw I find in libertarian thinking (which I do agree with on a lot of matters). We can’t just libetertarianize society when so much of what exists now is a result of a horribly biased, racist, sexist, classist, homophobic government regulated approach. If we want to put such ideas in place, we have to start from scratch. To say, “Okay, let’s do away with the rules” when, for so long, the rules allowed one group to exploit others and put themselves in power they now want to FURTHER exploit through the elimination of these rules is just ass backwards.
Dirty Roman coins.
Given a choice between seeing explicit sex acts depicted on our currency and “In God We Trust”, I’d pick the former without hesitation. It also has the added benefit of not being in direct flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
Look, the minute you have a “corporation” , govt courts handling business disputes, etc., the government has entered the market.
The government should avoid intruding unless the market is no longer free. In 1964, the market was not free. Blacks could not eat at the same counter , drink from the same fountains, and attend the same schools. Though this may have changed eventually, why should a citizen have to wait for all the people to agree for that citizen to be a full member of society
The golf course analogy fails as a store is not a private club – it is open for business.
@#7 – Well a lot of the racism in the south was enforced legally (Jim Crow) but that’s not to say there wasn’t and isn’t plenty of it freelance.
Regarding San Antonio – They didn’t exactly ban non-diet soda on city property, they took it out of their city building vending machines. Knowing how much this town loves cola, and the layout of downtown, I project that a lot of the small corner markets will see an increase in business. Interestingly, a lot of the juice and “juice drinks” sold in vending machines is more calorie dense and has a higher sugar content than soda.
Reading the article, I can see that the premise is largely based on the idea of colorblindedness (which may or may not be at the heart of Rand’s argument). The fact is we don’t live in a colorblind society. And it has been decidedly less colorblind in the past. To put rules in place that unfairly favor one group and then to try to remove all those, and other rules, is simply wrong. Sure, let’s go with no regulation of business. I agree with the principal of this. But all the regulation that has existed up to this point has been so unfair that we must undo that before we simply remove it.
BSK
If I follow your argument, you are saying that new rules must be put in the place of the old rules to compensate for the problems created by the old rules.
There are two fundamental flaws with such an approach:
1) The new rules become a new source of unfair advantages, sometimes exploited by the formerly oppressed, but all too often, used to the advantage of the very people who benefited from the old rules.
2) The new rules – or compensation – quickly becomes an “entitlement” that handicaps the growth and development of all of the society. See India’s attempts to ensure that the ‘untouchables’ got their fair share of government jobs for an example of this.
The libertarian approach – do away with the bad laws – does not immediately cure the ills, it just ceases to perpetuate those ills. Libertarians recognize that it will take time – often generations – for a natural equilibrium to be restored, but it is the only way to do so without introducing new, further distortions into a society.
“Chicago’s homicide rate continues to soar.”
Sounds like they need some illegal immigrants living there.
“I actually think it’s a mistake to hold police commissioners responsible for the murder rate in general. I’m not convinced it’s something over which they have much control.”
LOL! Especially when it comes to their own agents!
“Dave Weigel defends Rand Paul. I’ll put up my take on all of this sometime this weekend.”
Cue Rand Paul corruption/sex scandal on three … two … one …
You know, I’m just going to copy and paste what I said at TNC’s place:
At the risk of repeating what a bazillion people have already said, I think a lot of it comes down to a failure to appreciate the scale of racism at the time and its aggregate impact.
The theories you see espoused by self-described libertarians are probably sound if you’re dealing with a culture in which racism is abnormal. If a single business refused to serve black patrons where other businesses happily would, competitive pressure would either drive the former from the market or relegate it to more or less irrelevant niche status–and that’s to say nothing of the potential for violence, social sanction, etc. Racism would be rare enough and punished effectively enough by social stigma and the corrective mechanisms of the market that no government intervention would be necessary.
Of course, the situation in the south at the time was the opposite–racism was very much the norm, integrationist sentiment was the aberration, and the corrective mechanisms of culture and the market favored the racists. Moreover, as your commenter noted, most of the state and local governments were already intervening in the market again in a manner that again favored the racists. You’ll see a lot of libertarians note that, you know, it was really the government doing this and since they’re against coercive government action, they were effectively against institutionalized racism even as they opposed (and still oppose) any government action to remedy it. But that’s really a dodge, as “no government coercion at all” was never on the table–it was a choice between coercion in support of or opposition to white supremacy.
The other issue in play here is just the positive liberty/negative liberty issue that libertarians have trouble grappling with. If pressed, I don’t think a lot of them could really articulate a statement of support grounded in their own philosophy for the proposition of equal rights to access or participate in society. They only really recognize rights along the lines of, you know, this is my property not yours, which, particularly when coupled with a biased legal system, was a recipe for preservation of the status quo.
Aresen-
Thanks for the response. I don’t agree that, with time, things will get better, as most historical examples only point to things getting worse absent regulation. So, while I recognize that some advocate for this movement with the hope that it will ultimately be self-correcting, I just don’t share that optimism. And I’m not necessarily advocating for new rules. But rather, let’s just start over.
And, as Matt points out, this logic assumes that racism isn’t really as pervasive as it actually is. The idea that the market will correct itself is simply flawed because there is not equal opportunity access. Neighbors can’t just rise up and start a new business in every circumstance. If we’re talking about the pizza joint on the corner, sure. But what if we are talking law schools? What happens if the top law schools all choose to go white only? Can people really just start a new, Ivy-league caliber law school to serve the marginalized group? Many will say, “Well, those top professors will leave those schools, go elsewhere, and the power-balance will shift.” And, maybe so. But, again, history demonstrates that there is enough active and passive racism that this is unlikely to happen in such a way as to not deny the marginalized groups their own rights.
Racism is pervasive and exists on so many levels that only active opposition to it, like the Civil Rights Act, ensures a level playing field. So many forces are working against different groups (PoC’s, women, gays and lesbians, religious minorities) that only actively combating these forces can ensure that all have their rights realized. The status quo is biased. To remove the few rules that combat this is to ensure continued bias.
Why stop there? I recommend the following additional categories:
Indoor homicides where the victim called 9-1-1 but the police didn’t show up until the following day
Indoor homicides committed by the police while executing an unrelated search
Outdoor homicides committed by the police while trying to figure out how to work their assault rifles
Homicides where an Indoor victim used their Outdoor voice
Indoor homicides committed in the servants’ quarters (only applies to those making as much as Jody Weiss)
I find it disturbing that the governor of Arizona says that the issue is personal.
I can see the philosophical argument over the Civil Rights Act and particularly an argument over whether or not it remains sensible or necessary policy. I think the problem with the Rand Paul view is its removal of the debate from all historical context. It’s easy now to question the need for the Civil Rights Act now that our racial situation in the United States is, while not perfect, considerably improved from what it once was. However we also have to wonder how responsible the CRA was for creating our current situation. I think the self-correcting market forces is a weak argument. Like Matt D said, it rests on the assumption that non-racism is the norm, or at least a competitive enough market force to sufficiently combat racism. I think this is quite naive.
All things considered the language of Title II of the CRA simply bars public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce from discriminating based on race. While I’d imagine most of us here are troubled by the idea that the federal government may try to justify anything based on commerce clause, I simply don’t find this to be the most constitutionally problematic exercise of that power.
I also agree with the comment that, regardless of one’s feelings on the constitutionality, this may be an example of a situation where as libertarians we learn to pick our battles. There are certainly much more threatening uses of government power out there than the CRA. The fact that Rand Paul has made such an issue of this particular use of government power while still seeming to line up with the Republican (and now Democrat as well) conventional wisdom on say Guantanamo Bay and other war on terror issues is quite troublesome. One can’t help but question the priorities of a supposedly libertarian leaning person who is alright with indefinite detention and legal limbo but has a problem with the government banning racial discrimination in restaurants and hotels.
BSK
Again, I point you to India, where precisely the kind of rules that you suggest were put in place. The result was a sclerotic bureaucracy which serves only to perpetuate itself while stifling the economic development that will lift people out of the disadvantaged classes.
Racism, as you say, is prevalent and persistent. But it was more the “Jim Crow” laws that were enacted by the state that kept blacks down than the racism of individuals. It was the refusal of the state to intervene to protect the legitimate rights of blacks that allowed blacks to be oppressed. Try looking at photos of lynch mobs in the first half of the 20th century. In an astoundingly high percentage of those pictures, “law enforcement officers” are front and center.
The problem with the Civil Rights Act is that, to compensate an “oppressed class”, you have created a new class of bureaucrats that has slowed the development and perpetuated a racist view in inverted form. (“My ancestors have suffered, therefore you must compensate me.”) I have a strong suspicion that the economic drag created by that bureaucracy has done nearly as much to slow the rise of blacks to economic and civil equality as the CRA has to advance it.
If you are serious about fighting racism, then I would suggest your best course of action would be join libertarians in fighting to end the WoD. If you read this blog and other libertarian blogs regularly, you would certainly become aware of the disproportionate impact of the WoD on minorities and poor. The WoD does more to oppress minorities than any other system of laws or practices in force today. It is noteworthy that the WoD has its earliest origins in the racism of self-styled progressives.
The first comment on the sexting article linked is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet… and everyone here can guess how much that is saying.
Matt I. (and others), thanks a lot for your clear thoughts on the discrimination matter. I’ve been struggling with this issue of late and you’ve really helped bring me around to a rational position I can stand by.
Aresen-
You are venturing into strawman’s arguments. I never advocated for reparations, which is essentially what you are discussing when you comment on oppressed people wanting to be compensated. Ensuring equal access is NOT compensation. If it is, then everyone else is also receiving compensation. Furthermore, I agree with you on the WoD. As I said, I agree with a lot of libertarian principals, but this is one I do not. There are a lot of ways in which libertarians have great ideas when it comes to the anti-racist movement. And I believe that much of the support for this argument comes from some of the purest anti-racist sentiment. But, ultimately, I don’t think it’s realistic or appropriate given the historical context.
Also, you say that Jim Crow was the government imposing it, as if society was clamoring for equality and the government demanded racism. The racism was there and happening. Jim Crow simply codified what already existed and offered legal protection to those who practiced racism.
You keep comparing to India, but what I understand of that situation, that is not at all what I’m advocating. But “libertopia” cannot be achieved by simply applying libertarian principals to the status quo, because the status quo was achieved by decidedly unlibertarian principals. Property rights were denied to various groups for centuries and that legacy still lives with us. How can we have a society founded upon the explicit protection of such rights with this very real legacy still playing out?
With regards to the San Antonio story, there is no ban on non-diet soda. The decision only applies to the city-owned vending machines; anyone else can do whatever the liked.
If a city decided to, for example, switch the vending machines from Pepsi to Coca-Cola products, it would be kind of weird to describe that as “city bans Pepsi”.
I have a strong suspicion that the economic drag created by that bureaucracy has done nearly as much to slow the rise of blacks to economic and civil equality as the CRA has to advance it.
Sorry, but that’s just astoundingly ignorant.
Forgive me if I’ve missed something, but was it not Rachel “Madcow” Maddow who jumped Rand Paul in that interview with the Civil Rights Act topic?
It’s not like the guy went on her show intending “hey, I think I’m gonna go on national tv now and educate the world on the libertarian shortcomings of the Civil Rights Act!” He went on expecting to talk about his election victory the night before, and right out of the gate Maddow went after him with one of those “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” questions.
It was a no-win situation for Paul by design because the whole question was an intentional ambush by an extremely biased and dishonest journalist. But I honestly think he handled the situation as best he could in those circumstances. She tried to offer him a false dilemma of either repudiating his libertarian principles or coming off as a complete bigot. He picked neither and patiently gave a thoughtful, nuanced answer about his position that is very reasonable from a libertarian perspective – we DETEST racism, but neither is it the place of government to force individuals in their private actions and property to not be racist.
Will the frothing-at-the-mouth politically correct Obama-worshipping race baiters accept that answer? No. Nor will the small-minded simpletons who vote for them. But that was a given anyway, and last I checked Rand Paul was not competing for the Al Sharpton vote or the Paul Krugman vote. But outside the leftist race-obsessed media echo chamber, Paul handled himself admirably and we should NOT hold it against him that he failed to give them what they wanted, which was nothing short of a public flogging for holding libertarian views followed by a public apology for those views followed by a quiet resignation from the political sphere.
The criticism that “a serious political campaign is no place for this” only applies if Rand Paul is the one who brought up the topic in this serious political campaign. But he isn’t the one who brought it up. As best as I am able to determine, Rachel Maddow brought it up and cornered him with it, forcing him to choose between telling the truth and lying. He chose to tell the truth. That’s the extent of what he did “wrong”.
Sure, Rand Paul at some point in the past must have made this point, which allowed Maddow to bring it up, but as far as I can tell he was not at the time involved in a serious political campaign. So should Rand Paul never have stated any views until this time in his life? He was born in 1963. That’s a long time to keep your lips completely sealed.
If anyone has any different info, arguing that Rand Paul brought it up in campaign, go ahead and share it. The fact that this blew up at the time of the Maddow appearance and not before, and that Maddow was the one who brought it up at that time, tells me that it’s not Rand Paul who chose to make this topic an issue at this time.
Sadly PW, I don’t think this is the case:
“But outside the leftist race-obsessed media echo chamber, Paul handled himself admirably”
It wasn’t just the leftist media echo chamber that is attacking Rand Paul. Conservatives and even a lot of big-shot libertarians have joined the attack. I’ve had a couple of days of depressing reading. I hadn’t realized that so many libertarians come up short on such a basic issue as this.
I also find the argument in #2 to be completely absurd.
The government has a right to regulate bigoted private business owners because…they’re located on a public road and they use electricity from the utility grid?
By that exact same argument, the government also has a right to control anything and everything that happens inside the privacy of your own home. You do use electricity do you not? And you certainly benefit from the accessibility that public roads provide to your driveway, do you not? So on that basis under your argument, shouldn’t the government be allowed to inspect you at will to make sure you aren’t using any illegal drugs? To examine your bedroom and make sure you aren’t having the “wrong” type of sex with the “wrong” people? To observe how you raise your kids and make sure you aren’t teaching them values such as libertarianism that conflict with the state?
Bigots are detestable people for any number of reasons, and people that enforce their bigotry at their place of businesses should be shunned. But in a way the market itself will take care of that.
If you own an ice cream shop and put up a sign at the entrance that says “whites only,” that’s just economic STUPIDITY. First, you are effectively banning 20-30% of your own potential customers. Second, you are hanging up a sign that the majority of the rest of your customers find offensive enough to take their business elsewhere. It won’t be long before the loss of sales forces your bigoted shop out of business.
The point is the market works on its own! And it doesn’t need the government there to make it work. Ergo, that particular component of federal law is at best unnecessary and at worst a tool of federal intrusion that, just like any other stupid law against things that are a lot more benign, can and will be used in an abusive manner by the policing powers of the government.
For those who support Rand’s position, what would be the response if, for whatever reason, the entirety of access to a given good or service was denied to a particular group? Do we just accept that as an unfortunate reality that ideally will be corrected by market forces? And, in the meantime, what do we say to those denied? Tough luck?
I’m not being snarky, this is a genuine question.
I’m no fan of Rachel Maddow (or cable news generally) but she did not blindside him with this question. He put himself on the record on this issue in an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal weeks before and Maddow asked him about it. Paul is not a victim here. If a politician goes on the record about something they need to be prepared to be questioned about it.
“If you own an ice cream shop and put up a sign at the entrance that says “whites only,” that’s just economic STUPIDITY. First, you are effectively banning 20-30% of your own potential customers. Second, you are hanging up a sign that the majority of the rest of your customers find offensive enough to take their business elsewhere.”
But, is this true? How many stores have been exposed for practicing racial profiling and following around customers of color and seen little to no reduction in business? How many business moguls have been exposed as racists with little detriment to their empires? Many businesses have been exposed for engaging in various deplorable practices, including but not limited to racist practices. Few of these have felt any real economic harm because unfortunately, at the end of the day, most people simply don’t care enough and would rather get their delicious ice cream and look the other way if they are not personally harmed.
If you take those victim’s guns, then, yes, you’ve had an impact. Probably not the one you want, but still an impact.
#33 – I occasionally tune into right wing talk radio and did so this week intentionally to see how they were reacting to Rand Paul. What I heard out of Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin & Co. was pleasantly surprising. They were actively defending Paul on the air. And Levin was in a full fledged counter-assault against Maddow and the rest of the media.
So no, I do not think that the “mainstream” of the conservative movement has joined in the attack. The ones I have seen joining in the attack are people like Lindsay Graham and David Frum and a couple of the RNC types – basically the pantywaists of the Republican Party.
As for libertarian “big shots” (is there even such a thing for a movement that can currently count its number of sympathetic federal officeholders on a single hand?), I’m not sure who you are referring to but would welcome links to their comments. There is a regrettable contingent of self-described libertarians in our movement who go limp at the slightest insinuation of anything deemed “politically incorrect” in the press. I say regrettable because these types essentially bow over to the demands of people who are overtly hostile to everything libertarianism stands for, meaning that old saying shows its truth about them: “with friends like these, who needs enemies?”
But even then, I’ve not seen a large contingent of these types as of yet.
By the way, I would like to see somebody explain what’s “stupid” about the Michelle Malkin quote. I didn’t click through to read the entire article, but she’s absolutely right in the quoted part. Maybe the rest of the article was stupid, but if so, the quoted part was a poor choice to make her look dumb.
I read somewhere today that Rand says he is not a libertarian so as per usual I am confused. I have no idea what he is or what he believes and judging by the back-pedaling I am not sure he does either. As far as I am concerned he is a Republican.
What I want the poor guy to do is articulate what he believes and then let’s see if that will get you elected in Kentucky.
I was going to watch MTP for the first time since Russert died when I heard he was going to be on there. No I hear he is not going to be on because he is exhausted.
He does not need to start pulling the Sarah Palin shit. Get your ass out there son and play the game. You wanted in now you are in. Too late for choking now.
Honeymoon my ass! If this is a honeymoon then you sir are the cherry.
“For those who support Rand’s position, what would be the response if, for whatever reason, the entirety of access to a given good or service was denied to a particular group?”
Well first off, if you are implying what i think you are implying (a near-monopoly provider of something closed his business off to blacks and hispanics), the provider would suffer economically by self-imposing a good 20-30% cut on his own customer base.
Second, assuming the market was free of government-erected entry barriers (of which the Jim Crow laws that sustained segregation were prime examples, and hence the REAL problem), somebody else would recognize that there is economic gain to be had from that 20-30% of the population that is under-served and start up a competitor business to fill that gap.
Third, the competitor business would start to attract customers away from the original as well because the new guy is making his service available to a larger market base and because some of the customers of the old provider would be offended that he is excluding racial minorities.
Fourth, the combination of lost business from the excluded group and the new competitor would eventually force the old provider to drop his exclusionary policy or risk being put out of business.
Just an aside: this really isn’t that difficult of a concept – it’s basic free market economics. And I honestly find it troubling that a predominantly libertarian group of commentators is having so much difficulty with it.
re: dirty romans.
if you visit pompeii, make sure to visit the brothel. First, the “roadsigns” to get you there on the side of the road are hilarious, and once you get there, there are murals that act as “menus” for what you can purchase, since so many visitors there might not have spoken the local language.
“For those who support Rand’s position, what would be the response if, for whatever reason, the entirety of access to a given good or service was denied to a particular group? Do we just accept that as an unfortunate reality that ideally will be corrected by market forces? And, in the meantime, what do we say to those denied? Tough luck?”
Okay, suppose that everyone in the world (including, presumably, other blue-eyed people) hate blue-eyed people so much that every single actual and potential ice cream vendor refuses to sell ice cream to blue-eyed people.
What do you propose in this situation? Government action? But government is made out of people too! If there is so much hatred for blue-eyed people that no one is willing to sell ice cream to them, what makes you think that the people in the government will do anything to correct this injustice? By assumption of such extreme universal hatred, government will not – in fact, government will presumably round up blue-eyed people into concentration camps.
Your hypothetical is not consistent. You ask, “And, in the meantime, what do we say to those denied? Tough luck?” Who is this “we”? Why isn’t this “we” out there selling ice cream to blue-eyed people? Your hypothetical assumes the existence of a community of sympathizers large enough to correct the injustice. But if such a community exists, then what is the basis of the total freeze-out that you postulate?
#37 – Specifics please.
I strongly suspect that what you are referring to are not actually overt segregationist business practices that ban certain types of customers, but isolated instances where some CEO somewhere said something bigoted in private, it leaked out, the media had a sensationalist frenzy, and Jesse Jackson showed up to protest and demand an extortion payment to one of his “charities” to make it all go away.
If that is the case then let me go on record as saying (1) it is still not something that the government should be sticking its nose in and (2) I have no sympathy with the complaint, because the people who responded to it and the way they responded are every bit as evil and detestable as the original point of complaint.
PW-
I understand all of that. But what, if for whatever reason, that doesn’t happen. What if the barriers to entry are too high for non-governmental reasons? I realize it’s a hypothetical, but I ask that you entertain the actual question instead of simply dismissing it. The idea that the free market will correct all ills simply hasn’t been demonstrated to work in reality. Your hypothetical is likely just as fantastical as mine. Yes, there are great ways to avoid the scenario I described. But again, what if none of them are realized? What if you live in a given community with far less than 20-30% of the affected group? Should they simply leave? If you’re the only black guy in a small town and the only grocery store in a 30 mile radius won’t sell you food, what do you do? Opening up your own grocery store may not be a viable option and is someone else going to do it to get that 1 guy’s business?
PW-
One example: how about WalMart’s discrimination against its female employees?
Obviously, there are few to no example of official policies in recent memories because the practice is outlawed. But there are certainly other detestable practices that businesses engage in that most people, even those who would disagree vehemently with these practices, simply ignore because they aren’t being directly impacted.
You seem to have your head in the sand about the pervasiveness of racism in America. You want to pretend it is a minor issue that is easily corrected. Sadly, that is simply not the case.
PW, I’m going to try to create a link. Not sure what the rules are for comments, but here goes:
article citing libertarians who attack Rand Paul
Key summarizing quote: “AOL News contacted several prominent libertarian scholars Tuesday. Rather than come to Paul’s defense, the three who were willing to be quoted came down as supporters of the law.”
“What if you live in a given community with far less than 20-30% of the affected group? Should they simply leave? If you’re the only black guy in a small town and the only grocery store in a 30 mile radius won’t sell you food, what do you do?”
Go on the Internet/Go to the press. It wasn’t that long ago that a lesbian student was going to be excluded from her HS prom, and when word got out that town got massive attention and pressure from all over the world.
Thanks to the Internet, this hypothetical community won’t exist in isolation.
“I understand all of that. But what, if for whatever reason, that doesn’t happen. What if the barriers to entry are too high for non-governmental reasons? ”
If you don’t give specifics of why “whatever reason” is a reasonably anticipated and frequent occurrence, then you don’t really understand it at all.
Your hypothetical about the only black guy in the small town is simply unrealistic in our modern economy, where both goods and populations are highly fluid and mobile. It assumes that the exit option of moving is not viable, yet the exit option is ALWAYS viable if the situation is bad enough because people enter into transactions first and foremost out of their own personal utility (so in your absurd hypothetical, I’d probably advise him to move for his own happiness, just as I would advise a gay couple that wishes to be married not to take up residence in a 99% mormon town in rural Utah).
But beyond that it is unrealistic for a whole slew of other reasons. First, grocery stores tend to be regional or national chains to take advantage of the governing corporation’s supply and distribution networks and their economies of scale in purchasing products. If a single store adopted a segregationist policy it could only do so by running afoul of the company. Second, even in rural America, there simply aren’t any cases anymore where a single store is the SOLE provider of everything and controls everybody’s life. Third, disregarding 1&2 for a moment and assuming such a store existed anyway, the town probably would indeed be small enough that the loss of a family of customers would be economically undesirable. Put another way, your scenario would essentially require a town of about 30 people in rural Alaska. A shopkeeper in that scenario usually cannot afford to exclude one of maybe 10 families in town because of their skin color.
Constant-
Not sure it’s fair to say they are “attacking” Rand. They are offering thoughtful, measures disagreement with his position. If that constitutes “attack”, how do we ever disagree?
PW-
Seems you can’t answer my question. You keep dodging it, which demonstrates that there isn’t a response or, at least, you don’t know what it is.
There are small towns served by single, non-chain grocers. Moving is not always a viable option for people. This reality exists. Denying it to fit your ideology doesn’t make it go away.
BSK – in context I mean disagreement. I don’t happen to think that “attack” is the incorrect word, but if it has proven a stumbling block for understanding me, feel free to make the word substitution.
Constant-
To elaborate, I don’t disagree with your position. Just that specific language and I didn’t follow the conversation closely enough to see if you introduced it or whomever you are discussing with. But disagreeing with someone doesn’t constitute an attack necessarily. And labeling every criticism as an attack essentially disables one from offering criticism.
The Woolworths lunch counter bit occurred and was resolved in the favor of desegregation in 1960. Without government action. Over the next four years similar acts repeated throughout the south, almost all coming down in favor of desegregation. The ’64 CRA was merely government shoving it’s nose into the trough. Moreover, had SCOTUS never unconstitutionally gutted the 14th amendment through the Slaughterhouse decision, none of this would have been an issue, since if the blacks have guns you’re a shitload less likely to try and discredit their votes or set up segregated businesses. So it was in fact the government abuse of power that caused this in the first place, with the CRA being an overcompensation in the other direction with more red tape.
#48 – So basically as suspected – Brink Lindsey. Lindsey is great on free trade, arguably even one of the best writers out there period – I’ll give him that. But the second he wades into just about anything else (Iraq war, anyone?) he’s pretty much a noxious read and isn’t even really that libertarian. He’s also got a bad case of the PC bug, so I’m not at all surprised. I also therefore completely discount much of anything he says if it isn’t about free trade.
Epstein and Bernstein are somewhat different issues as they are not so much libertarian activists as they are academics. Their comments seem to reflect intellectual disagreements with Paul’s argument.
The main fault I see in Epstein’s argument is that he’s missing an institutional factor that sustained and supported the existence of segregation in business: Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow functioned as the state-imposed entry barrier that sustained private segregation, because it directly enlisted the power of the state (police) to enforce that segregation and bear the costs of enforcing it. Take away the police sanction and private businesses have to pay to enforce segregation on their own. Sure, the transition may have its share of bluster and threats of boycotts but I am confident that at least as far as any large scale business was concerned, the dollar sign would end up victorious in short order as those companies found themselves with the alternative of having to hire private security to enforce segregation etc., with minimal economic gain and lots of lost business opportunities.
Bernstein tackles the Jim Crow issue more directly, but again I think he misses the point – Jim Crow was the entry barrier, and government was its enforcer. I also think his dilemma is a false one. It is INHERENTLY easier and more preferable for the federal government to enforce its rulings against lower levels of government than the private sector because the federal government’s ENTIRE power in this area comes from the constitution, and more specifically the bill of rights (which is by its own text and definition a restrictive instrument against the powers of government).
Bernstein should know this as a law prof. But a historian he is evidently not, because the evidence of the civil rights movement actually attests that the most effective federal actions during that movement were in fact strikes against government-enforced instances of discrimination: specifically Brown vs. Board against the segregated public school system, the USDOJ’s Civil Rights division against local government police sanctioned brutality and lynching, and the Voting Rights division against local government-administered elections.
BSK – Since I’ve already clarified my meaning, I won’t try to defend my usage against your attack. :)
BSK – your entire line of questioning, and the hypothetical examples you offer, are unrealistic for the reasons I have already explained. That is not dodging – that is a statement of the weakness of your argument.
You will also note that I have repeatedly asked you for SPECIFIC and real examples of the cases you claim, all to no avail. Simply stating that something *might* exist does not make it so. Particularly when the reasons it isn’t realistic outweigh those you have given for it.
It should also be noted that federal involvement in civil rights did not begin in the 1960′s. It began in the late 1930′s when the Justice Department started going after corrupt local police departments on – you guessed it – police brutality against black people.
The most violent, obscene, and horrific acts of discrimination were almost ALWAYS those in which state or local government had a direct role. Textbook history has done a good (and intentional) job of hiding this fact because (1) it makes government look bad and (2) it goes against the thoroughly marxian theme of blaming segregation on the “market failure” when in fact the opposite is true. But without exception, practically every major event in the Civil Rights movement involved people versus the government:
- Brown vs. Board, ruling against the PUBLIC school system
- Little Rock High School integration, more PUBLIC school system
- Ole Miss and University of Alabama, Wallace in the doorsteps etc, more PUBLIC university systems
- Birmingham riots, caused by local government POLICE under Bull Connor
- Montgomery Bus Boycott, caused by segregation of PUBLIC transit
- The “Mississippi Burning” murders, caused by a POLICE OFFICER who pulled over the victims on trumped up speeding charges and then delivered them to the Klan
- Selma Bridge crossing, where marchers were brutally beaten by POLICE
- Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests, all part of GOVERNMENT voting laws
- Segregated bathrooms and waterfountains, all GOVERNMENT “sanitation” laws
The main perpetrator of wrong during the Civil Rights movement was ALWAYS government.
//One example: how about WalMart’s discrimination against its female employees?//
Suppose everyone BUT a particular business refuses to hire women; for less-skilled positions at that business, the number of female applicants would be sufficient to meet the business’ needs; for more-highly-skilled positions, the applicant pool would be sufficiently small that the business had to hire men as well as women. Even if the business operated in completely gender-blind fashion, and offered the lowest pay necessary to completely fill its required positions, what sort of pay distribution would one expect in the pay of males and females?
The business would be able to fully staff its lower-skilled positions at wages below what other businesses would have to pay to attract similarly-skilled employees (since the other businesses would be competing for male applicants, the non-discriminating business would have exclusive access to a pool of female applicants). To fully staff its higher-paid positions, however, it would have to compete with other businesses to attract enough male applicants to fill the positions (since even attracting all of the female applicants wouldn’t be enough).
Under such a scenario, it would appear that women were a victim of wage discrimination AT THE ONE COMPANY WHICH ACTUALLY HAD GENDER-BLIND PRACTICES. Statistics can, and oftenare, used to “prove” discrimination in cases where statistical imbalances have other causes.
A major objection to things like civil rights laws is that they lead to the notion that government can and should compel businesses to serve even people who, on net, would cost the business money. Further, they can yield self-fulfilling prophecies: (1) if businesses are compelled to serve members of a certain minority group even when doing so is unprofitable, employees will often observe that serving members of those groups will be unprofitable, and may feel little desire to give them the best possible service; (2) if members of a group perceive that they can get a business in trouble by claiming “discrimination” if they’re ejected for disruptive behavior, this may induce some members to engage in such behavior with impunity; this will perpetuate the perception that members of that group are disruptive.
PW-
I did offer an example: Walmart. And I can offer more. But you seem intent on just spouting your own ideas rather than engaging the ideas of others. Have fun with that. Good day to you, sir.
“Conservatives and even a lot of big-shot libertarians have joined the attack.”
Big shots who call themselves conservatives and libertarians have joined the attack.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I’ve been disappointed in the response to Paul by some libertarians. I don’t know why people insist that government is the fount of all fairness. I read these comments and what’s being said on the cable channels and places like Daily Kos, and you’d think that the idea of opposing racism was created in a government laboratory and nurtured by magnanimous bureaucrats. Government didn’t create the idea of fighting racism, it simply co-opted it after the sacrifice and struggle of a lot of private citizens. And the racism that it fought was the institutional racism created by the government itself!
And if you think that is something from our past, why do we see it happening again in Arizona with its anti-brown legislation. Sure there are people who hate immigrants, legal or illegal, and who have long lobbied for a steps like this to be taken. But it only becomes a danger to the life and liberty of us all when the government steps in and takes up the reins. And where are our bold leaders at the national level? They are waiting for the public to lead them, just like they did during the 50s and 60s with the civil rights movement.
The only safe course for any of us is to say there are areas where government cannot rule. And by having a government that actively enforces those limits. We HAVE to be able to have the freedom of expression and association in order to truly be a free people. As long as we give the government any ground in this area the worst aspects of ourselves will continue to be encoded in the laws of this land.
Weigel: “Obviously, being denied access to a business or a job because of your race is more offensive. And that’s still a problem. The argument is over how we deal with it.”
A good point by Weigel. Libertarians and/or conservatives may have totally non-racist reasons for disapproving of government intervention in who businesses serve, but allowing businesses to refuse to serve certain people can open up an ugly can of worms.
If a business refuses to serve someone due to race, gender, religion, etc. (while continuing to serve anyone else), and the customer refuses to leave, who will remove the patron? Either the business owner will violently eject the customer or they will contact the police. If the police are called, then government is not merely protecting private property rights, it is participating in discrimination against a particular group.
I think it is unlikely that we would have an exact repeat of lunch counter sit-ins and violent police response, but I don’t really want to take the risk at this point. I’d rather focus on things like ending the drug war and dialing back militarism in our society.
The Roman Coins are privately issued tokens, not coins.
What ravenshrike said. I can’t help but laugh when people suggest that the market (which, in this case, is a misleading pseudonym for INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS) can’t bring about social change re: discrimination. Think about the prominent figures of the Civil Rights eras; how many were politicians? From Rosa Parks to Jackie Robinson, governmental action is a lagging indicator. And it continues today. Nearly every large corporation offers benefits to same-sex partners–and did so not because of any law but because it was good business sex–but meanwhile our allegedly progressive savior of a president still won’t support gay marriage.
Regarding the CRA:
Blacks and other minorities often get shitty service.
Thanks to the war on poverty, they are also poorer, and have far more children out of wedlock, and thanks to the war on drugs, far more of them are in or in&out of prison. Thanks to the “public education” system they are given an education that is vastly inferior to the deliberate dumbing down and mind control system used on white kids.
So on and so forth. There most certainly is some sort of “progress” being made here – but the driving intent seems to be to reduce black people (and others) to a never ending hell of destitution and servitude.
But … but … but, Henry, one of their own is in the White House!
/sarcasm
Before Radley or anybody else sticks their necks out to defend Rand Paul, they should get a load of this “money quote” from the Time Magazine profile:
Pure libertarians, [Rand] says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.
“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian,” Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered…
Rand is not challenging the CRA on “libertarian” grounds, and he is not a libertarian. He is a self-described right-winger, and he is attacking the CRA as a right-winger. period-end-of-story.
You can defend Rand Paul on one position without believing he’s some sort of libertarian (he’s definitely not).
If the police are called, then government is not merely protecting private property rights, it is participating in discrimination against a particular group.
No, it really is merely protecting property rights. If a Mormon church calls the police to eject an unwanted visitor from their property because that person drinks, are the police engaging in prohibition?
It’s worth noting that lack of Jim Crow laws didn’t mean no racial discrimination in private business. This post from Marginal Revolution discusses a book describing the Jim Crow like segregation/discrimination in LA, at a time when there were no laws at all requiring such discrimination.
Markets do apply pressure against discrimination in many areas. But in other areas, they apply pressure for discrimination, because markets are ultimately about giving consumers what they want. If enough white consumers don’t want to have black neighbors, or black customers sitting at the next table, then a free market will provide a certain amount of Jim Crow like segregation.
Indeed, it’s pretty much impossible, from a value-neutral economic analysis POV, to distinguish between, say:
a. A spa which caters only to women, in response to the desire of many women not to wander around half-dressed in the presence of a bunch of gawking men.
b. A club which caters only to whites, in response to the desire of many whites not to associate closely with black strangers.
Most people would say (a) is reasonable and good, and (b) is wrong and evil. But I don’t see how you’d see these as any different in economic terms–it’s just decisionmakers acting according to their beliefs/values and incentives.
I wonder how Rand Paul views federal laws that require private businesses to verify ID/right to work in order to hire someone. It’s hard for me to see what principle would say that the federal government may not forbid discrimination in some cases, but may require it in other cases. (And all those nice market forces that push against discrimination are precisely the reason that so many illegal immigrants come to the US and find work in the first place.)
RE: Jan Brewer
She feels it’s more appropriate to say, “it’s personal” than to admit “I’m a heartless bitch”.
I have limited sympathy for Rand Paul whining about unfair treatment by the media. He has been flying under the radar for a long time, now that he has won a primary election, the media is now going to take a much deeper interest in his views and philosophy. If there are perceived gaps between his ideas and past and current reality, then he can expect the media to ask him questions about those perceived gaps. As has been pointed out, Rachel Maddow did not suddenly produce the racial discrmination issue out of a hat as a strawman – Paul had previously talked about it, so he could hardly expect that it would remain under cover indefinitely.
I take the view that politicians who hide from the media by either refusing to appear and be interviewed, or who (more insidiously) only agree to appear if they get all of the questions and get to pre-approve them (cough! Sarah Palin! cough!) are, quite simply, wimps. By bailing on “Meet The Press”, Rand Paul showed me that he is not properly prepared to be a mass-market politician. There is no way he can spin a refusal to appear to make the decision look good. (Although I would be very tempted to decline to appear on “Meet The Press” for numerous other reasons, most of which have to do with the sheer idiocy of most of the questions that are asked).
The CRA debate is all academic at this point. There is zero chance of any of it being repealed withing anyone’s lifetime who is alive today. But it is interesting nonetheless and brings up some interesting points and questions regarding limited government and the proper role of government. I don’t think many people disagree with the parts of the CRA which dealt with state imposed discrimination. Under the 14th amendment, it is pretty clearly something the federal government can and should do. The two questions left are whether title 2 is 1) necesary and 2) a power that the Fed has.
There are very strong constitutional arguments that it is not a proper power of the Fed. But the commerce clause has been rendered totally meaningless, so that is a lost cause for the time being. Whether is is or was necessary is still a very interesting question.
My take on it is that an advocate of limited government (even if not a pure libertarian) ought to, on issues like this, take a wait and see attitude. Try first just eliminating the government imposed racism and discrimination and at least see if the market will sort the rest of it out. Maybe it will and maybe it will not. If segregation is still just as bad without Jim Crow, maybe we do need the law. But now we can never know. I am perfectly happy to admit that I do not know for sure that the market would lead to a good outcome. I wish more people on both sides of this argument would admit that.
It seems to me that Rand Paul was basically defending the right to be stupid: specifically, the right of business owners to ban potential customers on the basis of race, creed or color. Any SBO idiotic enough to do that ITD&A would be given a FAIL rating by consumers.
the right of business owners to ban potential customers on the basis of race, creed or color.
Seems like only yesterday it was standard operating procedure.
[...] at the link. H/T to Radley Balko for the URL. Comments [...]