To: GOP - - - Is Rand Paul right or wrong?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_05/023889.php

RAND PAUL, THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AND 'THE HARD PART' OF 'FREEDOM'.... When Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky, sat down with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, the paper understandably wanted to get a better sense of the right-wing ophthalmologist's ideology. It led to a logical question about the scope of government power.



When the interviewer noted that Paul's approach would have allowed lunch counters to deny service to Dr. Martin Luther King, based on nothing but his race, the Republican candidate said he would not go to that lunch counter, and he would criticize that lunch counter, but suggested it would be wrong to legally prohibit a business from discriminating. "{T}his," Paul said, "is the hard part about believing in freedom."

This wasn't an isolated exchange. Paul was on NPR yesterday, explaining that he only supports laws to prohibit "institutional" racism, not discrimination in private enterprise.

Paul then spoke to Rachel Maddow last night on MSNBC, and during the interview, the Republican candidate was more than a little evasive, perhaps realizing that his ideological extremism probably doesn't sound compelling to the American mainstream. Nevertheless, when Paul was asked about the desegregation of lunch counters, he replied, "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion."

Rachel replied, "Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul."

I have to admit, I find myself at a rare loss for words. At a certain level, I just find it painful to fathom the notion that, in the 21st century, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate would publicly express his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm well aware of the dangerous shift of today's GOP, but I like to think there are some lines that even Republicans wouldn't cross. And yet, here we are.

We all casually throw around words like "crazy" and "fringe" when describing contemporary politics, but once in a while, developments like Rand Paul's candidacy come along, and the need to reevaluate the blurred lines between Republican politics and sheer madness becomes apparent.

In the larger context, I also suppose it's time to start asking Republican leaders across the country a straightforward question: "Your party's Senate candidate in Kentucky has a problem with the Civil Rights Act. Do you think he's right or wrong?"

—Steve Benen

Where there were no public services of any kind - no public roads going to the business, no public water supply. I don't agree with his position, but intellectually I can understand it.

Since we don't, and never will live in such a world, he's either delusional or a racist. Neither of which make for a good elected official.

I can't imagine such a thing as a "private business" fully independent of public-paid infrastructure.

checks, no "worker's compensation" program, none of the security net that makes those private business "safe" (or at least "safer") for both their workers and their customers!

And, by the way. . .there would be NO consequences for any private business to hire ONLY illegal aliens and pay them starvation wages!

I can't judge if he is a "racist" or if he hates people with disabilities or whatever ...

His whole world view, and his political paradigm is based on the most extreme position of complete abjegation to the "free market" ...

As you noted, it simply does not apply in real life ...

But, it is the simple minded do all and be all for hard core libertarians ...

It works well IF they are allowed to just spew the pretty sounding surface level campaign crape ... But, as the Maddow and Paper interviews indicate, if held to account on a tangible point it leaves a pretty unmanageable position ...

question. Somebody should ask Boner and McConnell this today.

Just to push a little further - does anybody know what Rand Paul's take is on the American Disabilities Act? I heard something that it might be equally as damming for Paul - but - I didn't catch the details of his stance on this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005474-503544.html

snip//


In an interview on NPR yesterday, host Robert Siegel asked Paul, the son of libertarian hero and former presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), whether the Civil Rights Act went too far. Seigel noted that Paul has said in the past that the Americans with Disabilities Act was an overreach of the federal government.

"What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," Paul said.

However, he added:

and private entities should be able to discriminate, then by extension, Paul believes in discrimination, no?

see right through this.

...as a form of government. As with communism, you get that whole 'utopia' thingy happening.

They cry and moan about the limiting force of institutions and bureaucracy in government and pretend the same problems do not exist in "private enterprise". As if "institutional racism" does not exist in business. His words sound eerily similar to white separatist arguments about "institutional racism".