Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

May 21, 2010

Why Rand Paul Is, In A Sense, Both Right And More Principled Than Those Disagreeing With Him

I didn’t support Rand Paul’s candidacy for Senate. And folks know I was not a supporter of his father, Ron Paul – I’ve opposed both his presidential and congressional candidacies. So when I say a few words in Rand Paul’s defense on this issue, please realize that I am not a part of his “Amen Corner.” So when I say that there is something admirable about this statement – and that I am more or less in agreement with it – regarding the proper scope of government power, rest assured that it isn't coming from one of the PaulBots or Ronulans from daddy's 2008 campaign.

Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.

Now let’s break this down, because I think what he is saying and/or implying is important.


  1. Racism and discrimination are repellant, abhorrent, and immoral.
  2. Freedom, properly understood, includes the freedom to do the repellant, abhorrent, and immoral, not to mention the unpopular.
  3. Absent a compelling need to limit freedom, government ought not do so.
  4. While the repellant, abhorrent, and immoral should be tolerated by government, private action may serve to punish such behavior through the combined action of individuals.

Frankly, I agree with these propositions on a philosophical level. In an ideal world, I think that there should be no laws or regulations banning discrimination in private sector business transactions or employment. The market place will deal with it harshly if it is economically or socially unacceptable – and if society as a whole does not reject such discrimination, it is not the place of government to impose the value of non-discrimination upon an unwilling society.

That said, let me make three caveats.

First, discrimination by government is ALWAYS inappropriate, and must ALWAYS be banned.

Second, were discrimination would cause a serious and irremediable charm, it must be banned. An obvious example of this would be the providing of medical care, especially in emergency situations.

Third, there are situations where the government must intervene – and I believe the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a perfect example. Given that so much of the racial discrimination that existed at that time was the direct result of government action – in particular of laws that had imposed “separate-but-equal” as the law of the land – government action to undo the results of those laws was a moral necessity. That said, it is to be hoped that at some point such laws will be unnecessary

Now before someone accuses me of supporting segregation let me be clear – I do not. On the other hand, I am not always opposed to discrimination, and think that there are times when it might be affirmed as acceptable if voluntarily practiced in the private sector. For example, why should the law prohibit a newspaper of magazine that caters to the gay community from hiring only gay employees? Why should the government tell an African-American businessman that he cannot give preference to other members of his race? And, to use an example that we have seen again and again, what government interest is served by telling a business owner that she cannot accept or reject jobs for her photography, printing, or catering business based upon her religious principles? Businesses which do such things will prosper or suffer based upon the reaction of the public to their choices – either there is a niche for them or there is not. Shouldn’t believers in freedom be willing to allow for their existence in the name of providing greater liberty to every individual in society?

And that latter issue is where I find Rand Paul to be more principled than many of his critics. They often wrap themselves in the mantle of defenders of liberty, but then demand that actions and choices they disagree with be banned. Rand Paul offers a vision of a society in which people are more free and government is less intrusive. If he is extreme in that vision, is that truly a bad thing?

UPDATE -- A couple of posts on the Volokh Conspiracy make my points in much more academic language than I do, with more reference to the law and founding principles. So does this article.





|| Greg, 04:06 PM || Permalink || Comments (0) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Why Rand Paul Is, In A Sense, Both Right And More Principled Than Those Disagreeing With Him

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/273107
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Why Rand Paul Is, In A Sense, Both Right And More Principled Than Those Disagreeing With Him'.

Comments on Why Rand Paul Is, In A Sense, Both Right And More Principled Than Those Disagreeing With Him

Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs