RSS Feed MenuAre Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act germane to whether or not he should be the next Senator from Kentucky?
Yes. Let me explain why.
Libertarians tend to be very wary of having the government get involved in telling private businesses what they can and can’t do. I can understand that. But I also think that there are times when it might make sense for the government to tell a private entity that they can’t do something that impinges on the liberty of another person. For example, people have to eat, or get a job or live in a home. If someone says to a person of another race that they can’t eat at this restaurant, or have this job or live in this neighborhood, then that person is being denied their freedom to live as they see fit. The whole problem with racism is that it limited the liberty of a whole people simply because of the color of their skin. The problem with Mr. Paul’s answer is that at some level, it isn’t very libertarian. Libertarianism is about, well, liberty, and if someone is totally free to live here and there and have this job or that one while someone else is not, that isn’t liberty to me.
Mr. Paul may have done himself harm. He will be perceived, wrongly in my view, to be a racist. I don’t think he is, but he is rather clueless when it comes to the issue of race. Sometimes, the government does have to step in ensure liberty and justice for all.
Originally published at NeoMugwump.
Alex Knepper // May 20, 2010 at 2:58 pm
This is a scary abuse of language. We must define our terms. What is “liberty” to mean? It can’t just a synonym for “something good” or “something I like.” Liberty, as I understand it, is the absence of physical coercion — that is: we remain free to do things we shouldn’t do — and even to not do things we ought to do. So when you say that private businessmen are impugning on the “liberty” of customers they are discriminating against, that’s a worrying use of the term. They may be infringing on their dignity, but their liberty? — I think not. The “freedom to live as you see fit” does not apply when it comes to someone else’s property, okay? — So, the question is: do you believe in property rights? If you don’t, fine: have that argument. But don’t steal the concepts — like liberty — of the side you oppose. It dilutes the terminology. “Liberty” is not a synonym for “virtue.”
Smarg // May 20, 2010 at 3:01 pm
“If someone says to a person of another race that they can’t eat at this restaurant, or have this job or live in this neighborhood, then that person is being denied their freedom to live as they see fit.”
Many disagree with this argument.
If concrete statistics show that a certain demographic steals, destroys, and somehow disprespects businesses or homes that negatively affects profits or housing prices, cannot a business or home owner have the freedom to to choose who buys or uses their property?
Rabiner // May 20, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Smarg:
“If concrete statistics show that a certain demographic steals, destroys, and somehow disprespects businesses or homes that negatively affects profits or housing prices, cannot a business or home owner have the freedom to to choose who buys or uses their property?”
Want to offer those actually statistics that you’re eluding to here? They don’t exist but I’d like you to provide your fantasy numbers anyways. Not to mention the fact you’re advocating judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.
Smarg // May 20, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“…Not to mention the fact you’re advocating judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character.”
Statistics don’t lie.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Table 14: Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005
Report title: Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 NCJ 213133
Data source: Census of Jail Inmates, 2005 and National Prisoner Statistics, 1A
Authors: Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck
Refer questions to: askbjs@usdoj.gov 202-307-0765
Date of version: 5/21/05
Table 14. Number of inmates in State prisons and local jails per 100,000 residents, by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, June 30, 2005
Number of inmates per 100,000 residents/a
Region and jurisdiction Male Female White/b Black/b Hispanic
All States 1,249 121 412 2289 742
found at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/data/pjim0514.csv
Care to do an analysis on percentage of whites and Blacks in the population and corresponding ratios cited above, Rabiner?
No, you will just say I am a racist. Typical of your ilk.
Next.
Rabiner // May 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Ah yes, the normalized statistics showing that minorities which are poorer on average are more likely to be in prison. You’re trying to show causation with information which only shows correlation. So please, show me statistics which prove that minorities when normalized for socio-economic conditions just happen to commit crimes that would affect a business more often?
What’s typical of your ilk is misusing statistics to ‘prove’ misguided preconceived conceptions.
quanta // May 20, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Smarg – According to your data:
66% of inmates are black
91% of inmates are males
So really, by your logic, private businesses should refuse to serve men since they are “a certain demographic [that] steals, destroys, and somehow disprespects businesses or homes that negatively affects profits or housing prices”. You are using statistics to infer causality, which makes no sense.
LFC // May 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Alex, I think maybe you should sit down and read “Lord of the Flies” to see what your little utopian libertarian society would end up looking like.
busboy33 // May 20, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Nice numbers Smarg.
Do I have to point out though that your conclusion (whites/blacks/hispanics are more “criminal/dangerous’ than the others) is utterly unsupported by those numbers? All you’ve done is said that the prison population is of a specific demographic makeup. You are assuming a few HUGE leaps in logic, namely;
a) Incarceration is directly associated with guilt.
b) all ethnicities get sentenced in direct proportion to their “criminality”. If a black defendant gets 10 years for possession, and a white defendant gets 1 year, you will by definition have a higher precentage of black inmates to white for the exact number of crimes or the same proportion of crime to ethnicity. That feeds into the most damning error:
c) Correlation does not equal causation. Your logic is that if category X has a higher rate of incarcerated members than category Y, then category X is more prone to being a criminal. There are more right-handed inmates than left-handed inmates . . . can I use your logic to decide then that right-handed people are more dangerous than left handed people? If I correlated the statistics for rich inmates vs. poor inmates, does that “prove” that ethnicity is irrevelant to criminality? After all, there are more poor inmates than rich inmates, and there was no mention of race, so that must not be impactful, right?
. . . but then, you already knew all this, didn’t you? You’re not looking at data and drawing a conclusion, but rather you’ve got a conclusion and you’re using the data to justify it. That’s certainly your right. But it sure doesn’t make bad logic good.