Paul Accepts Support Of Advocate Of Execution Of Homosexuals

December 28, 2011 — Ron Chusid

While Ron Paul has virtually zero chance of winning either the Republican nomination or a general election in this country, there is something about him which makes following his campaign interesting. Part of it is having a candidate who does not fit well into the normal left/right divide of today’s politics. It is also fascinating to watch who does and does not support his campaign. Paul is essentially a candidate of the old, isolationist right. His opposition to the war resulted in many supporting him without giving adequate consideration to his full philosophy. His support for  states’ rights and opposition to most actions by the federal government gives the illusion that he is libertarian. I’ve found that some libertarians do support him, while others do see through him, especially since his connection to other common viewpoints of the old right, racism and antisemitism, were exposed during his last presidential run. The latest embarrassment for those who mistakenly see Paul as being pro-freedom is the endorsement by of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska. Talking Points Memo discussed Kayser’s views and how they tie into Paul’s version of federalism:

Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”

Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.

“Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

There is a history of homophobia being expressed in Paul’s newsletters, and we recently learned of his fear of using the bathroom of a gay supporter. While Paul may not advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, he does have a strong history of accepting infringements upon individual liberty by the states (as opposed to the federal government) as part of his fanatical states’ rights viewpoint. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists who have backed Paul understand the consequences of his views far better than the remaining libertarians who support Paul. They understanding how Paul’s views would destroy civil liberties at the state level and make it far easier to impose fascism. Fortunately some libertarians do seem to understand, such as Doug Mataconis who writes:

So basically this guy supports Ron Paul because he thinks a President Paul would make it easier for him and people like him to enact state laws that mirror the Book of Leviticus, and the Paul campaign welcomes his support. This is not libertarianism.

The first commenter to the post cited above also makes it clear:  “Paul’s Federalist Libertarianism (hat tip: Popehat) is nothing new. He’s fine with authoritarianism as long as it’s at the state level.”

Posted in Civil Liberties, Libertarianism, Ron Paul, Separation of Church and State, Social Issues. Tags: , , , . 10 Comments »

Freedom To Complain About Government Officials

November 25, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Yesterday I noted a story about someone who criticized President Obama and wound up being interviewed by the Secret Service. The person has signs up at his business with fallacious criticism, and has criticized Obama on Facebook. He was acting within his First Amendment rights, regardless of how absurd his claims are. Unless there is more to this story than I am aware of, such as statements promoting violence, there was no reason for any law enforcement agencies to get involved. Reportedly his statements made it to the Secret Service who interviewed him and laughed off the incident.

Today there is a report of a high school student being harassed due to a tweet which was critical of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback:

A Kansas teenager is in trouble after mocking Gov. Sam Brownback during a mock legislative assembly for high school students.

Emma Sullivan, a senior at Shawnee Mission East High School in Prairie Village, was in Topeka on Monday as part of Kansas Youth in Government, a program for students interested in politics and government.

During the session, in which Brownback addressed the group, Sullivan posted on her personal Twitter page:

“Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot”

On Tuesday, Sullivan was called to her principal’s office and told that the tweet had been flagged by someone on Brownback’s staff and reported to organizers of the Youth in Government program…

Brownback spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag said her office had forwarded a copy of Sullivan’s tweet to organizers of the school-sponsored event “so that they were aware what their students were saying in regards to the governor’s appearance.

“We monitor social media so we can see what Kansans are thinking and saying about the governor and his policies,” Jones-Sontag said.

“We just felt it was appropriate for the organizers to be aware … because of what was said in the tweet.”

Sullivan, 18, said she posted the comment because she doesn’t agree with Brownback’s policies, particularly recent cuts in state aid to schools. She is a registered Democrat.

“Some of my friends were joking about what they’d really like to say (to Brownback), so I just took out my phone” and tweeted, she said. “I guess it was kind of a heat-of-the-moment thing.”

This sounds like a quite clear violation of First Amendment rights, with both Governor Brownback’s office and the school principal acting inappropriately.

Update: I did receive this link from a reader who says that the person in the first incident was a member of right wing militias and had threatened the president. If that is the case, then the Secret Service was right to interview him. It is the principle as opposed to the specifics of this particular case which is most important–merely criticizing a government official, regardless of party and regardless of the validity of the criticism, should not lead to retaliation from any unit of government.

 

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Civil Liberties, Republicans. Tags: , , , , . 3 Comments »

Rand Paul, No Libertarian On Free Speech

June 1, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Pure libertarians, while disagreeing with liberals on areas where government is necessary, often are of value in supporting liberal policies on civil liberties and social issues. Unfortunately many in the libertarian movement, like the Tea Party movement, have adopted many of the attitudes of the Republican right wing. They promote a bizarre brand of libertarianism which is limited to guaranteeing the rights of the ultra-wealthy to exploit others.

I’ve pointed out several times how Ron Paul is no ally to those of us who want to promote individual liberty. His son, Rand Paul, is also showing a bizarre view of freedom. On the one hand, he equates making affordable health care available to all as slavery. On the other hand, he has no problem with restricting freedom of speech. Think Progress has this quote:

PAUL: I’m not for profiling people on the color of their skin, or on their religion, but I would take into account where they’ve been traveling and perhaps, you might have to indirectly take into account whether or not they’ve been going to radical political speeches by religious leaders. It wouldn’t be that they are Islamic. But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that’s really an offense that we should be going after — they should be deported or put in prison.

I really do hope that it turns out that Paul was quoted out of context, although it is difficult to see how this might be the case looking at the entire excerpt. I even tried checking out some of the saner libertarian-leaning blogs to see if there is an explanation. Eugene Volokh has the same wish. Even more depressing, Volokh find that, while it might not be morally right, it might even be Constitutional to deport  (but not imprison) someone under such a situation. I wouldn’t think anyone in their right mind, which apparently excludes Rand Paul, who would see imprisonment as being desirable, morally right, or Constitutional.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Libertarianism, Republicans. Tags: , , , . 4 Comments »

Tea Party Willing To Compromise Civil Liberties By Backing The Patriot Act

May 28, 2011 — Ron Chusid

The Tea Party movement disgraces the memory of the founding fathers who took part in the original Boston Tea Party by advocating positions contrary to the principles this nation was founded upon. Their leaders sometimes claim to be only interested in economic matters to avoid the opposition by a majority of voters while a majority in the movement actually support the agenda of the religious right. They are incredibly ignorant regarding economic policy and are easily led by the factions of the right which seek to destroy capitalism and replace it with plutocracy.

When the Tea Party first came on the scene, there was hope among some liberals that they might at least be allied with us on civil liberties matters, even if we disagreed on other areas. Unfortunately they typically support the Republican right wing on civil liberties issues.

The Patriot Act is not the best measure of civil liberties as it contains both legislation which is necessary to update law enforcement to handle terrorism in the modern world along with portions which should not be tolerated in a democratic nation. Many members of Congress are likely to vote for measures such as this to avoid attacks from the right for being soft on fighting terrorism, placing political expediency over principle.

While far too many members of Congress of both parties voted for continuation without amendment, typically the Tea Party opposes any compromise on issues they support. Many are willing to support measures to destroy Medicare regardless of public opinion (often while also demanding that the government keep its hands off their Medicare benefits). They are willing to support an economic crisis by having the United States default on our debts as opposed to raising the debt ceiling. If the Tea Party really supported liberty, we might expect them to oppose any compromise on civil liberties and oppose continuation of the Patriot Act.

Irregular Times looked at the votes of Congressmen associated with the Tea Party movement on last week’s vote to extend the Patriot Act without reforms. Tea Party backed members of Congress supported the extension by a vote of 120 to 18.  This is a greater percentage than was seen in the entire House, which voted for the extension by a vote of  250 to 153.  Individual liberty is obviously not a priority for the Tea Party.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Congress, Social Issues. Tags: , . 1 Comment »

Tea Party Called Upon To Oppose Extension Of Patriot Act

February 9, 2011 — Ron Chusid

There was a temporary victory for civil liberties yesterday as the Congressional Democrats, with the help of some Tea Party Republicans, voted down an extension of the Patriot Act.  There has always been the rare conservative who has been strong on civil liberties. The Tea Party, while generally representing the current far right Republican base, does have a variety of types of supporters and it is good to see that this does include some who are supportive of civil liberties. Unfortunately they represented only a minority of the Tea Party caucus. Twenty-six Republicans voted against the bill, including eight newly elected Republicans.

Dennis Kucinich helped establish the coalition which opposed the Patriot Act, calling for members of the Tea Party to show support for the Constitution on this matter:

“The 112th Congress began with a historic reading of the U.S. Constitution,” Kucinich said. “Will anyone subscribe to the First and Fourth Amendments tomorrow when the PATRIOT Act is up for a vote? I am hopeful that members of the Tea Party who came to Congress to defend the Constitution will join me in challenging the reauthorization.”

The full text of Dennis Kucinich’s speech against the Patriot Act is under the fold:

(more…)

Posted in Civil Liberties, Congress, Republicans. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

Santa’s Not The Only One Watching To See If You’ve Been Naughty or Nice

December 3, 2010 — Ron Chusid

If you are an aspiring terrorist, beware of using your credit card at Bombs R Us and certainly do not join the al Qaeda loyalty program for discounts. The government is watching the use of credit cards, calling cards, and loyalty cards. From Wired:

Federal law enforcement agencies have been tracking Americans in real-time using credit cards, loyalty cards and travel reservations without getting a court order, a new document released under a government sunshine request shows.

The document, obtained by security researcher Christopher Soghoian, explains how so-called “Hotwatch” orders allow for real-time tracking of individuals in a criminal investigation via credit card companies, rental car agencies, calling cards, and even grocery store loyalty programs. The revelation sheds a little more light on the Justice Department’s increasing power and willingness to surveil Americans with little to no judicial or Congressional oversight.

For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, followed up by a order from a judge that the surveillance not be disclosed. Agents can also go the traditional route — going to a judge, proving probable cause and getting a search warrant — which means the target will eventually be notified they were spied on.

The document suggests that the normal practice is to ask for all historical records on an account or individual from a credit card company, since getting stored records is generally legally easy. Then the agent sends a request for “Any and all records and information relating directly or indirectly to any and all ongoing and future transactions or events relating to any and all of the following person(s), entitities, account numbers, addresses and other matters…” That gets them a live feed of transaction data.

DOJ powerpoint presentation on Hotwatch surveillance orders of credit card transactions

The problem here isn’t necessarily the use of information of this type, but the nature in which it is being obtained without a warrant or judicial oversight. The judicial system is only being used to get an order to prevent disclosure of the surveillance after the federal agent has written his own subpoena to obtain the information.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Courts. Tags: . 2 Comments »

The Blogosphere vs. Barack Obama

September 28, 2010 — Ron Chusid

I feel like the we have returned to the days of the 2008 Democratic Primary as a number of liberal bloggers (primarily but not entirely Clinton supporters) have spent the day bashing Obama. The latest round of this got underway with a blog post from Peter Daou (who worked for Hillary Clinton) and was picked up by the usual suspects. Others, such as Ezra Klein and Steve Benen, put the dispute into perspective, with Steve referring back to a recent post which outlined many of the liberal accomplishments under Obama which some on the left often ignore.

From a political perspective, Daou is overstating the problem when claiming that liberal bloggers such as “Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher” are “bringing down the Obama presidency.” Most people haven’t even heard of these bloggers, and polls have shown a very high level of support for Obama among liberals and traditional Democratic voters. Many liberals can handle acknowledging Obama’s accomplishments and showing some understanding of the political situation he is working in while also disagreeing on some issues.

On the other hand, we have seen a number of signs that this criticism is getting under Obama’s skin (along with that of close associates like David Axelrod). It is a safe bet that they are surprised by the amount of criticism they are receiving from those they expected support from. However to claim they are bringing down Obama is absurd. I think that Obama, as well as the Congressional Democrats, face far more problems due to the apathy towards voting from the average voter who is disillusioned by the slow progress on the economy than they are harmed by those who are upset by compromising of progressive principles.

This is not to say that all of those engaging in the Obama bashing today are sore losers among the Clintonistas or that there is no validity to their complaints. Those such as Glenn Greenwald who concentrate on civil liberties issues do have more to legitimately complain about. Even here a bit of perspective is needed from those who claim that Obama is worse than Bush. Obama is well aware that should there be another terrorist attack on his watch the right will blame it on any areas where they could argue Obama let up on the “war on terror.” This could easily result in a right wing backlash with greater restrictions on civil liberties.

It is of value for bloggers such as Greenwald to point out the problems with Obama’s policies but more of a sense of perspective is needed. Some of Obama’s decisions have been wrong, but we are hardly living in a dictatorial police state, or even in a state as bad as we would have under the Republicans as some on the far left claim. (It is also notable that the tea party supporters who attack Obama for a number of imaginary offenses have largely been silent on these issues).

I also could not help but think, seeing how many primary opponents of Obama are leading the attacks, that most likely either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would be far to the right of Barack Obama on these issues based upon their past records.

While advocates of a single payer system have many valid arguments, it was disappointing during the health care debate to see some such as Jane Hamsher distort the Democratic plan as dishonestly as was done by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Besides, there was zero chance that a single payer plan would pass.

Obama’s mistake here it was more on selling reform as opposed to the type of reform which was passed. The Democrats were delusional to think opposition to health care reform would vanish after passing it, especially when most of the benefits won’t be seen for a couple more years. I don’t buy the argument being made by some that initially pushing for an agenda which is further left would lead to more liberal results, but on health care I do believe that it could have affected public perception of the plan.

Obama antagonized many liberals for quickly shooting down any chance of a single payer plan and also played into the hands of Republicans who falsely claim that his plan represents a government takeover of health care. Imagine if Obama had started out saying there are basically four ideas which might be considered:

  1. “Socialized medicine” where there will be a government run health care system and government bureaucrats run the system.
  2. A single payer plan, like Medicare, in which government pays instead of private insurance companies, with health care facilities remaining in private hands.
  3. A mixed plan similar to the Republican counter-proposal to the Clinton health care plan with controls over what insurance companies could do, exchanges to promote sales of private plans, etc.
  4. Continuing the status quo where bureaucrats from the insurance companies often make the decisions and where many people are denied insurance coverage entirely.

Obama then could reject both socialized medicine and the status quo. When he ultimately went with #3 it would be more accurately framed as a moderate option to the status quo and not a radical plan. Maybe such framing would have even made it easier to push for the public option, which would still be a long way from the rejected choice of socialized medicine.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Civil Liberties, Democrats, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Terrorism. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

More Accurate Framing On The Proposed Islamic Community Center

August 19, 2010 — Ron Chusid

Yesterday I objected to both the mischaracterization of the proposed Islamic Community Center at Park 51 near the site of the 9/11 attack as a “Ground Zero Mosque” along with objecting to how politicians of both parties are handling the controversy. “Ground Zero Mosque” is both intentionally misleading and intentionally inflammatory on the part of conservatives who hope to fuel Islamophobia. Today the Associated Press came to a similar conclusion issuing a staff advisory to avoid this terminology. Their recommendations correct the location but unfortunately leave it optional as to whether to call this a mosque or more accurately a community center which contains a mosque.

AP’s statement also notes President Obama’s position. Actually Obama could have done much better, such as in this proposed statement from Ed Brayton:

The proposed opening of an Islamic center a few blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood has sparked a good deal of controversy in some circles. The families of those who died in the terrorist attack on 9/11 are divided on the question, with some of them opposing the project and some supporting it. In either case, their emotional reactions are understandable and all too human.

But this is a nation of laws that respect well-defined freedoms and the freedom of religion and the right to own property are at the top of the list of liberties that the constitution seeks to protect. And we do not condition those rights on the feelings of other people, nor do we take them away because others may be bothered by how one exercises those rights.

And no matter how understandable the emotions it provokes on either side may be, the organization that owns the building are in full compliance with the legal zoning regulations and there is no possible legal basis for denying them the right to open the Islamic center that they wish to open. Any attempt to deny them that right would, quite correctly, be overturned by the federal courts.

That does not make the owners of the building immune from criticism. For those who are offended by the project, the same First Amendment that protects their right to open the center also protects your right to speak out against it. And the courts and my administration will guard your right to protest the project as strongly as we will guard their right to complete it.

But if you seek to deny the right to open the Islamic center, either through futile legal filings or through direct action of some kind, you will not only be damaging the rule of law, you will be damaging this nation’s ability to fight a comprehensive war on terrorism inspired by the radical views of some Muslims around the world.

That war is absolutely dependent upon the cooperation and bravery of moderate, pro-American Muslims both at home and abroad. At great risk to their own lives, thousands and thousands of such people work every day with the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and with our nation’s armed forces both here and in Iraq, Afghistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other nations where Al Qaeda operates.

By pushing the idea that all Muslims are a threat to the United States, you demean and dehumanize the courageous efforts of those people who are fighting on our side and play directly into the hands of the most radical and dangerous elements within the Islamic world.

Osama Bin Laden sells his followers on the idea that the United States is at war not merely with him and his violent cohorts but with the entire Muslim world, that America is a Christian empire seeking to wipe out Islam. That is a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda all around the world and the more this nation behaves in ways that support that position the more powerful it becomes and the more moderate and otherwise peaceful Muslims will be pushed into the terrorist fold.

That is why it is more important than ever that we remain a nation that treats all religions equally and fairly and that we apply the law to individuals and organizations of every religion with scrupulous fairness. Anything less than that is a confirmation to the Muslim world that Bin Laden is right. Anything less than that undermines our ability to win the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world and undermines our ability to win the battle against the extremists among them.

We must not stoop to their level. We must not demonize Arabs or Muslims in the same manner that the Muslim extremists demonize Americans, Jews and Christians. We must not deny American Muslims the right to practice their religion freely and equally in this country in the same manner that many Muslim nations deny Christians, Jews and others the right to practice their religion in those nations. Doing so is not only contrary to our own laws and values, it also damages our national security.

That is why my administration is supporting the full application of the Bill of Rights to all sides in this controversy, both the right to build the center and the right of others to speak out against it.

For the most part in is excellent, although if we are to nitpick I do agree with a commenter who wrote:

I like it. There’s not a single point that I disagree with. My sole problem with this framing is that it leaves me with the impression that the primary reason to uphold the Bill of Rights is that it helps in the “War on Terror.”

Now, I don’t think that helping in the fight against al Qaeda is a bad thing, but, personally, I think it’s even more important that both freedom of religion and freedom of speech be upheld just because it’s the right thing to do.

Posted in Barack Obama, Civil Liberties, News Media, Religion. Tags: , , , . No Comments »

Just Get The Damn Warrant

July 29, 2010 — Ron Chusid

Unfortunately people in the executive branch, regardless of party, will always tend to try to grab more power and make things easier for them. A White House proposal is a bad idea, both in terms of showing respect for civil liberties and in trying to show a significant difference between themselves and their predecessors. We already saw far too much of compromising on civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism during the Bush years.  The Washington Post reports:

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual’s Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau’s authority. “It’ll be faster and easier to get the data,” said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. “And for some Internet providers, it’ll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL.”

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government’s demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that “most” Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.

To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is “incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting,” said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. “You’re bringing a big category of data — records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information — outside of judicial review,” said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

Posted in Barack Obama, Civil Liberties, George Bush, National Security. Tags: , , , , . 4 Comments »

Rand Paul’s View On The Civil Rights Act Displays More On The Fallacy of Libertarianism Than On Racism

May 20, 2010 — Ron Chusid

Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act has raised questions of racism. Such questions are understandable considering the racist writings of his father, Ron Paul, and the connections by both of them to racist elements of the right wing. Rand’s position actually says far more about the fallacious thinking of many libertarians as opposed to saying anything conclusive about his racial beliefs.

Libertarians and true small government conservatives could oppose the Civil Rights Act without being at all racist due their general opposition to government action. This is the major problem with libertarianism–confusing opposition to government with liberty in all situations and denying that at times government action can be beneficial.

If we were dealing with isolated business establishments refusing to do business with African Americans then I would agree there would be no need for government action, and would hope that market forces would punish those who restricted their potential customers. The reality is that market forces did not work here, as Bruce Bartlett explained:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn’t have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

James Joyner is another who has found justification for the Civil Rights Act, while maintaining understandable concern about further expansion of government involvement in what should be private business decisions:

There’s no question in my mind that private individuals have a right to freely associate, that telling owners of private businesses whom they must serve amounts to an unconstitutional taking, and that it’s none of the Federal government’s business, anyway.   Further, in the context of 2010 America, I absolutely think that business owners ought to be able to serve whomever they damned well please — whether it’s a bar owner wishing to cater to smokers, a racist wanting to exclude blacks, or a member of a subculture wishing to carve out a place for members of said subculture to freely associate with only their kind out of purely benign purposes.

The problem, circa 1964, was that there really was not right to freely associate in this manner in much of the country.   Even once state-mandated segregation was ended, the community put enormous pressure on business owners to maintain the policy.   That meant that, say, a hotel owner who wished to rent rooms without regard to color really weren’t free to do so.   More importantly, it meant that, say, a black traveling salesman couldn’t easily conduct his business without an in-depth knowledge of which hotels, restaurants, and other establishments catered to blacks.   Otherwise, his life would be inordinately frustrating and, quite possibly, dangerous.

In such an environment, the discrimination is institutionalized and directly affecting interstate commerce.   It was therefore not unreasonable for the Federal government to step in using their broad powers under the 14th Amendment.    I’m still not sure parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (especially the issue in question here) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (especially treating individual states differently from others) are strictly Constitutional.   But they were necessary and proper in the context of the times.

The Civil Rights Act was a situation in which government action led to increased freedom, contrary to libertarian beliefs. A strict libertarian would be expected to oppose the Civil Rights Act out of consistency in opposing any government action. However, in the real world a very large percentage of libertarians do not strictly adhere to libertarian views in all cases. While there are some anarcho-capitalists who share the beliefs of libertarians such as Murray Rothbard, many libertarians do find exceptions where they do support government action.

Rand Paul’s position here very well could be a consequence of mindless consistency in following libertarian dogma but there are reasons he cannot easily escape being tainted with racism here unless he makes a meaningful effort to dispel this. One problem Rand Paul has is that he has already made so many compromises with libertarianism, from supporting restrictions on civil liberties to supporting using government to interfere with a woman’s right to chose to have an abortion. I would understand if a pure libertarian cold not support government intervention to stop the type of infringements on liberty which were present prior to the Civil Rights Act. It is harder to understand why Rand Paul could not make another exception when he has already compromised libertarian principles to such a great extent.

The other questions surrounding Rand Paul might be matters of guilt by association, but they do create an even greater need now for Paul to distance himself from the racist elements of the far right which he associates with. It is understandable that he would not want to disassociate himself from his father but speaking at a rally of the racist and theocratic Constitution Party in 2009 is a different matter. Regardless of whether Rand Paul has any racist feelings, there is little doubt that his public statements on the Civil Rights Act are going to lead to some expressions of support from racist groups. It will be interesting to see if Rand Paul does the right thing and refuses to associate with them and refuses their contributions. His father failed this test, losing the support of many libertarians, in contrast to Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr who did have the integrity to repudiate their support.

Posted in Bob Barr, Libertarianism, Republicans, Ron Paul. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts «
»