Harsh Criticism

So Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act and segregation got him in a bit of a pickle.

The most pathetic thing about this is when Rand Paul supporters use the word “smear” to describe Rachel Maddow politely asking Rand Paul to answer a yes or no question. I guess it’s irresponsible for a reporter to not take a politician’s evasive responses at face value.

Regarding segregation on private property:
No, you don’t get to actively help build a system in which some people are given the status of “inferior,” and thus in reality help subject them to violence and coercion, and be immune from the consequences when you’re on your property like you’ve reached home base or something. When property is used to further a wholesale violation of liberty, then liberty comes first.

For examples of how desegregation could be, and largely was being accomplished without government action, see Rad Geek’s comments on direct action.

And yes, political taskmaster, history is always relevant. Especially when it contains parallels to the present.

Rand Paul made a clear statement against racial segregation, but showed hesitance to use government force to prevent it. So apparently he thinks private property is important enough that he has problems using the government to desegregate it, but doesn’t think it’s important enough to stop the government from confiscating income by threat of force to finance war machines (CHT Roderick Long).

In blogosphere douchebaggery, there’s Why Libertarians are a Danger to the Economy by Ben Cohen.

The debate between Libertarians and the economic Left should have ended after the spectacular collapse of the deregulated financial sector. Not only did deregulation cause the crash, but government interference into the market prevented it from getting much, much worse.

So the lack of government regulation is obviously to blame. Would that implicate the free market in which government acts to raise living expenses and boost real-estate and banking profits, the free market in which $663.8 billion dollars are spent (officially) to secure and project the power of the United States government, the free market in which banking and corporate giants give politicians money in return for favors, or some other free market I’ve missed?

But hey, if the economy’s running well for bureaucrats and corporate managers, then it must be good for everyone, am I right? Progressives sit on the left side of the bosses’ table!

What clinches this essay for the douchebag-wing of liberalism isn’t Cohen assuming the store owner would be a liberal, but his boasting that “of course I didn’t” visit any of the websites suggested by the man who was “so absolutely certain of his own position, and so well armed with his own set of facts that there was no point in discussing it with him at all.”

Responding to Cohen’s post, Eric Dondero, in addition to his typical semiliterate tantrum throwing, lies by saying “We libertarians”. “Libertarian” means supporting individual liberty and minimizing authority. A person who is so enamored of the power of the most extensive empire in the history of the world that he has trouble separating sex from macho flag-waving is not a libertarian.

And fuck Mark Zuckerberg too.

17 Responses to “Harsh Criticism”

  1. bile Says:

    Liberty certainly comes first… however it is important to note that there is still no clear line where privately owned businesses and privately owned homes or clubs differ. It is in the degrees of openness not a difference of kind IMO. While it’s not home base… it is certainly far more complicated then the other parts of the ’64 law which forbid government enforced segregation.

    As for Cohen… I wanted to call him out on that statement about not bothering to look up the sites but my HuPo account was locked out for some reason. (I saw it there first and when I commented on his site Dondero threw me off.) It was so ridiculous of a post I thought at first it was satire.

  2. DarianW Says:

    I agree that private property complicates the issue. What I’m saying is that not all cases are fully resolved by invoking the words “private property.”

  3. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    Why doesn’t “private property” settle the matter? Do you disagree that private property owners have the right to discriminate as far as whom they allow on their property or whom they serve in their businesses?

  4. David Z Says:

    As far as anarchists are concerned, I’m very sympathetic to the idea of ‘private property’, but it’s this total inability to see past labels that upsets me most about mainstream libertarianism. You may call something ‘private property’ but that doesn’t necessarily make it just.

    he untangling that needs to be done, IMO, is to go back and look at the foundation of ‘private property’.

    Suggesting that these were ‘private property’ in a pure Libertarian sense is as stupid as a football bat: The foundation is just rotten, man. Like, Thanks for nothing, right? OK, now we ended legal “segregation” but did nothing to overturn the century worth of ‘private property’ that relied on that legally sanctioned inequity – just like they freed the slaves and then graciously allowed them to be sharecroppers…

  5. bosco Says:

    I hope some day you are both on my private property so I can shoot you and end all this.

  6. David Z Says:

    Both? There are three of us.

  7. DarianW Says:

    >Do you disagree that private property owners have the right to discriminate as far as whom they allow on their property or whom they serve in their businesses?

    I think there is a difference between not serving someone because he looks sketchy and actively helping to create a situation in which people will likely be violently attacked for the color of their skin. I argue that segregated lunch counters did this, and therefore reducing violent coercion took precedence over the property rights of the counter owners.

    I don’t think that, for example, the local Polish-American club, the Society of Hispanic Engineers, or the vast majority of religious institutions are guilty of contributing to violent persecution.

  8. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    Wow. I couldn’t disagree more. How do you feel about the right of the members of the Klan to publicly rally? Does reducing the potential for violent coercion trump their rights of free speech and assembly?

  9. DarianW Says:

    David,

    Are you saying that all property held by whites in the South was illegitimate because its accumulation was based on slavery and the former slaves and their families deserved restitution?

    If this is what you’re arguing, I would say that I doubt all segregated businesses were paid for using the spoils of slavery.

  10. DarianW Says:

    And we should remember that the progressive hero Woodrow Wilson, in addition to waging a war to increase the global power of American elites, segregated Washington DC and federal services, kicked blacks out of federal employment, and kept blacks away from Princeton University.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_wilson#Civil_Rights

  11. bosco Says:

    @Dave

    When I was posting there were only two comments. Before I hit send two more people commented. For the record I didn’t think this many people were going to get involved and I was making a trolling comment based on something Jim Davidson once said. Sorry for wasting your time.

  12. BroadSnark Says:

    “and be immune from the consequences when you’re on your property like you’ve reached home base or something”

    LOL

  13. bile Says:

    @Jim, I believe Darian’s point is that their claim to the property is not very clear though he may be being as blunt about it as it comes across. I would say that there is an argument to be made that their property was illegitimacy gained to some respect… I also would say that it’s impossible to quantify and therefore should not be used as a measure for determining the legitimacy of actions taken on the property they have title to. Especially in the statist environment we existing in. I can see such infractions being used to further the statist cause… which it did.

  14. DarianW Says:

    >How do you feel about the right of the members of the Klan to publicly rally? Does reducing the potential for violent coercion trump their rights of free speech and assembly?

    If they’re just standing around telling people to be racist they have the right to do that, but if they are participating in violent attacks on people (as some racist groups have) then I don’t see why it’s a problem to respond to credible threats.

    I don’t see my position on segregated businesses as intending to reduce the *potential* for violent coercion, but intending to reduce violent coercion that actually happens. Creating an large environment where some people are treated as inferior to others necessarily makes them targets for attack. I would be careful to not apply this principle too broadly, but I think there are definite instances in which it would apply.

  15. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    I think you’re confusing cause and effect. A segregated lunch counter is the product of bigotry, not the source of bigotry. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that treating people as inferiors “necessarily makes them targets for attack.” It just makes them treated as inferiors.

  16. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Dondero still considers himself a libertarian. Sad, really. Fuck him.

  17. David Z Says:

    Are you saying that all property held by whites in the South was illegitimate because its accumulation was based on slavery and the former slaves and their families deserved restitution?

    If this is what you’re arguing, I would say that I doubt all segregated businesses were paid for using the spoils of slavery

    I don’t mean that they were paid for using the spoils of slavery, only that there was an underlying and pervasive inequality in the South during the course of the following century, and it is not unreasonable to point fingers at the institution of slavery.

    We can’t pretend that it didn’t exist, and we can’t likewise pretend that Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” resulted in practical equality (or even a reasonable approximation of same) for all subsequently “emancipated” slaves.