Rand Paul, Racism and 1965 Civil Rights Act

[giblets]

Yeah, that's why I brought it up.

[Dinner]

I guess you guys should also whine about the Equal Pay Act of 1963 while you're at it.

And the Persons with Disabilities Act.

[Wezil]

Can we work on shoving the gays back in the closet while we're at it?

[Heraclitus]

What do gays have to do with anything?


The equal pay act naturally follows the same logic. I see no problem with abolishing it. Wimmenz right groups talking about the pay gap as some great evil don't have the facts on their side.

[Wezil]

What do gays have to do with anything?

I saw the "Boys Beware" video. Gays are clearly deviant predators and should be in jail, not catered to.

[Heraclitus]

I saw the "Boys Beware" video. Gays are clearly deviant predators and should be in jail, not catered to.

This is completley OT. Not everyone who is a critic of aspects of the civil rights or equal pay act looks like this fellow:



Thou the description does fit many people.

Troglodyte seems to have emerged from the mists of time untouched by human evolution. Devoid of a single progressive idea and lacking the slightest awareness of social and cultural advances, Troglodyte has developed an incoherent political philosophy that he characterizes as "conservative" or "libertarian", but which could be more accurately described as "bigoted narcissism". His aggressive posturing often frightens off weaker, more timid Warriors. In pitched battle, however, Troglodyte easily loses control and his attack quickly degenerates into a rant. Just for the fun of it, Weenie, Issues. Pinko and Evil Clown will sometimes deliberately goad him into a towering rage.

This reminds me. Apolyton has been low on pinkos lately. Weenies and Evil Clowns however seem to be doing ok.

[KrazyHorse]

To reiterate, I'm in favour of the civil rights act as well as the equal pay act (at least in terms of their broad thrust). I just don't think that the people arguing in favour of it here are doing a good job.

[Guynemer]

Lori's viewing the thread!

Lori sighting!

[aneeshm]

No, he's not a racist.

He's just a fervent pro-big business ideologue. Here are a pair of quotes from his appearance on GMA this morning:


Regarding BP:

What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, “I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.” I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.

Did BP profit from this? Or did they lose? AFAIK, they're going to lose a very large amount of money over this accident. If they lost, isn't it a disaster for them, too? If so, though blaming them for their oversight is justified, as is placing responsibility where is belongs, treating them as if this was something they actually intended, in the style of a comic-book super-villain, isn't warranted. I presume (interpreting his remarks charitably) that this is what he meant.

Regarding the West Virginia mine disaster:

We had a mining accident that was very tragic. … Then we come in and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.

Again, sometimes, accidents happen. Doesn't mean that those who aren't responsible shouldn't be held accountable - they should - but to treat them as intentionally evil is not right.

[aneeshm]

And when markets fail and just re-enforce inequality you think the job is done? That's retarded. It's terribly myopic to think that the majority opinion and preferences are egalitarian enough to enforce equality and that if true equality isn't provided by the masses, that's the preferable outcome.

Seriously, what sort of ethical calculus holds that the right to discriminate is more important than the right to not be discriminated against?

Assuming systemic discrimination exists, the costs of black labour will be lower than that of the corresponding white labour, thus leading to an immediate competitive advantage to any person or business who employed blacks, with the advantage increasing with the amount of blacks he employed, and reaching a maximum if all labour were black (if, of course, all classes of labour black labour were in fact cheaper than their corresponding white counterparts).

From this, it immediately follows that such businesses will then outcompete those which do not employ black labour, and will continue to do so until the demand for black labour is driven up until its cost reaches parity with that of white labour and the competitive advantage disappears.

That, at least, is the theory. I haven't seen anything to counter it. The "destruction of communities" due to the "cheap, Chinese-made goods" of Wal*Mart, in spite of the value many of these "communities" claim they place on their situation before the introduction of Wal*Mard, belie all claims that discrimination would have made consumers buy more expensive products as compared to cheaper ones solely on the basis of discrimination. Even rational incentives to discrimination, at least in the minds of consumers, do not stop them from buying at Wal*Mart.

In regards to discrimination in public places - that's a ridiculously childish way for a community to view itself. I see it as no more mature than a child requesting a teacher that the "cool kids" - at least as he defines them - not be allowed to exclude him from sitting at their table. It is nothing more than an adult version of this same emotional scenario playing itself out, with the big guns, both intellectual and sometimes physical, brought into the picture. All arguments back and forth are nothing more than expressions of sympathy with one or other of these juvenile "sides".

Who I allow into my establishment - which would, to preclude accusations of racism and prevent the derailment of this thread, in my case, be anyone who follows the rules and can pay - is my business, not anyone else's. I could choose to allow blacks only if they were born on an odd-numbered day, and whites only if they were born on an even-numbered day, to take a rather contrived example, and that would (or rather, should) be nobody's business but my own. It is not for the state to legislate private morality.

[Kuciwalker]

Assuming systemic discrimination exists, the costs of black labour will be lower than that of the corresponding white labour, thus leading to an immediate competitive advantage to any person or business who employed blacks, with the advantage increasing with the amount of blacks he employed, and reaching a maximum if all labour were black (if, of course, all classes of labour black labour were in fact cheaper than their corresponding white counterparts).

This ignores the fact that there was, essentially, a standing boycott of businesses that employ blacks in traditionally white positions.

[aneeshm]

Assuming systemic discrimination exists, the costs of black labour will be lower than that of the corresponding white labour, thus leading to an immediate competitive advantage to any person or business who employed blacks, with the advantage increasing with the amount of blacks he employed, and reaching a maximum if all labour were black (if, of course, all classes of labour black labour were in fact cheaper than their corresponding white counterparts).

This ignores the fact that there was, essentially, a standing boycott of businesses that employ blacks in traditionally white positions.

I plead ignorance. That puts a different twist on this. Not morally, but practically.

What form did the boycott take? And would it be impossible to have an all-black business? I ask out of curiosity.

[giblets]

In regards to discrimination in public places - that's a ridiculously childish way for a community to view itself. I see it as no more mature than a child requesting a teacher that the "cool kids" - at least as he defines them - not be allowed to exclude him from sitting at their table. It is nothing more than an adult version of this same emotional scenario playing itself out, with the big guns, both intellectual and sometimes physical, brought into the picture. All arguments back and forth are nothing more than expressions of sympathy with one or other of these juvenile "sides".

Is this guy some kind of troll?

[aneeshm]

Is this guy some kind of troll?

Morally, or in terms of history, that's roughly how I see it. Discrimination, as long as private, is fine by me. Not in the sense of me seeing it as a good - I do not - but that there is no justification for its criminalisation. Liberty includes the liberty to do distasteful things; otherwise, it is not liberty at all.

(The inflammatory nature of the analogy was supposed to drive home a point - that separating reflexive moral reactions from reasoned thought is necessary in order to discuss this question without antagonism.)

[giblets]

This guy can't be real. This has to be some kind of caricature.