There has been a lot of furor over the remarks by Rand Paul recently. Needless to say, defenders of Rand Paul immediately charged that it was “gotcha” journalism. This is the favorite political catch phrase when you have uttered something that turned out to be politically unwise. Unfortunately for Mr. Paul, he has a record of similar statements. Please do Google him and see the various articles over the last several years. Let me state carefully that he is not a racist. There is no evidence that he is a racist. But, he has been a strict libertarian. And, in strict libertarianism, the State has extremely limited rights to intrude into the lives of individuals. Unfortunately, while that sounds good in theory, it does not deal with American historical reality as he quickly found out. The reaction in various venues has been swift, and not simply in “Democratic” or “liberal” venues. But, here is a quote for you:
“The foundation of libertarian thinking is private property as a limit on state action,” David Bernstein, a libertarian law professor, explained to Talking Points Memo, the popular political blog. “So if a private business chooses to discriminate, a typical libertarian would say that’s a business owner’s right to do so.”
This is precisely the case Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Republicans’ conservative wing, made on the Senate floor just before the final vote on the Civil Rights Act. “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort,” Mr. Goldwater said, even as he attacked provisions of the bill that “would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise and in the area of so-called ‘public accommodations’ and in the area of employment.”
Public accommodations included gas station rest rooms, drinking fountains, lunch counters, hotels, movie houses and sports arenas. It is hard to imagine a candidate today making the case that discrimination in such places should be allowed. Indeed Mr. Paul has said he favors the “public accommodations” provision. But in advancing the autonomy of private businesses, he is reviving libertarian thought in its peak period. In his 1962 book “Capitalism and Freedom,” Milton Friedman, the right’s most influential economist, equated the Fair Employment Practices Commissions — created to prevent workplace discrimination — with “the Hitler Nuremberg laws.” But he also applied the comparison to “the Southern states imposing special disabilities upon Negroes.” In other words, he recognized that Jim Crow was itself a form of intrusive government, only enacted at the state level.
This points to the bind Mr. Paul is in. However attractive it may be just now to depict all political conflict as a neatly bifurcated either/or, with the heroic individual pitted against the faceless federal Leviathan, the truth is that legislative battles over civil rights laws were waged within government, and between competing incarnations of it, federal vs. state. Passage of the Civil Rights Act, as Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina observed last week, hinged on the Interstate Commerce Clause, which “was properly used by the courts and the Congress.”
This is what many in the Tea Party do not want to see. There are times when the government must be intrusive. By defining all “intrusions” as socialism, Tea Party members not only redefine socialism far beyond its historical reality, but they also become incapable of reacting to social evils in the community. Sometimes, there are no easy choices. But, sometimes, the choice is easy. Stopping discrimination in employment, in housing, in the Armed Forces (do you remember Roosevelt’s order of June 1941?) is easy as Rand Paul “realized” all too late.
Our Constitution states that among our “natural” rights, endowed by our Creator, are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The defenders of Rand Paul are desperately trying to argue that the Jim Crow laws are the result of government intrusion into the private sector, but at state level, as the quote above shows. It is a desperation move, since the Jim Crow laws were widely supported by the very individuals who overwhelmingly elected their state representatives. To put it bluntly, the Jim Crow laws were successfully enacted and supported for many years precisely because they expressed the will of the majority of the populace. In fact, the Jim Crow laws were the result of the pressure of the white majority that refused to accept the results of the Civil War–no it it not the War Between the States and, no, it was not merely an economic dispute. They were not government intrusion into the private sector–as Rand Paul’s defenders would claim–but the public expression of private racism.
There is one good thing about the Rand Paul dust up. It has reminded us again that there is a role for a central government that goes beyond roads, bridges, and police. It reminds us that part of the role of government is to ensure that the maximum number of individuals have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If that means that some individuals must be made unhappy by being required to hire without considering race or gender, if that means that houses must be sold regardless of race or gender, if that means that contracts must be signed regardless of race or gender, then so be it. We fought a Civil War over that theme. Many marched in the 1950’s over that theme. People died both in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights Movement over that theme. It is time to give up that fight, and way past time for Christians to be drawn into anything that appears to support the wrong side of that fight.
This means that some people will argue that their rights as a business owner or a house owner are being trampled upon. Let me be plain. Yes they are, in order that the majority of people will have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And that is what the Tea Party people miss. In their arguments about the individual, they miss the majority; they miss society. Like Rand Paul, they make theoretical arguments. But, when they are faced with the real life consequences of their arguments against the intrusion of the government into the private sector–restrictive housing covenants, biased hiring, deliberate discrimination, biased promotions–they quickly bail and change their minds, just like Rand Paul did.
Here is the problem. The private sector cannot deal with racism. The private sector cannot deal with people who deliberately refuse to hire certain people. The private sector cannot deal with restrictive covenants that prevent “certain” people from buying houses. The private sector cannot deal with “social” clubs which “certain” people cannot join but in which clubs much of the “business” of the city or of the private sector is conducted.
Does this open us up to the danger that there may be some regulations passed with which we do not agree? Of course. Here is a bit of human reality for you. Matters can always swing to an extreme. The Tea Party and Rand Paul are perfect examples of that. But, the answer is to fight the extremes, at both ends, not to decide to become a member of one of the extremes. It is much more difficult to become a moderate. It is much more difficult to maintain a balanced stance. It is much more difficult to look to the right and call them to account for their acceptance of racism in order to uphold a supposed “private” right. It is much more difficult to look to the left and call them to account for their inability to draw boundaries between public and private, thus making everything subject to the state. It is very difficult and not popular to be a moderate, a centrist, a person who maintains a balanced approach and refuses to allow themselves to be drawn into simplistic explanations of human existence and simplistic explanations of the way in which God works among us.
But, if we do not develop moderates among us, then as a society, we are in danger of becoming the North American version of just another “banana republic.”
The reasoning I heard is as follows (somewhat symplified and paraphrased): “Sam the restaurant man does not want to serve (insert group here) at his place. People who don’t agree with Sam do not go into his restaurant. The restaurant dies on the vine. The free market at work.” This is a fine idea and would undoubtedly work if Sam’s ideas of who should be served in his place is out of the community norms. The problem is that there are some strongly held ideas out there that are not very nice. We live in a fallen world. People think and do things that are not fair and sometimes are downright evil.
I think that if Sam’s restaurant was somewhere near Ground Zero, the public would not blink an eye if he refused to serve Muslim looking men especially if they were speaking Arabic or women wearing hijab. After all look at the uproar about women wearing hijab. [Now I think you should have at least your face uncovered for a passport or a driver’s license photo, but covering hair is pretty innocent–after all they do not make you get your picture with your natural color hair or without your scarf if you just had chemo and your hair fell out or for men with the male pattern baldness, the hair that was there before they shaved their heads.] I often wear long skirts and loose tops that do not show much of my body. It is a modesty thing, not a political statement!!
Sometimes there has to be a centralized authority to make sure that all persons are treated equally. This does not mean, however, that some are treated better or some get special priviledges or rights. I do not think you can fault a bank for not giving a mortgage to anyone whatever race, creed, color, gender, sexual preference or national origin they may be if they do not have the means to repay the loan. I do not think it is fair to let low scoring folks in to a school before the higher scoring folks because of their race, color, creed…..etc. Too many of my daughters friends who were of color (she is mixed race) blamed their failures on racism when my daughter was getting A’s from the same teachers. (The difference ws she did the work and they didn’t!!)
Sam has a right to keep people out of his place who cause chaos, who threaten him or his customers, or who do not pay for their meals. I think he has the right to insist that people have to wear clothes and shoes. These things do not have anything to do with what we are talking about. The customer’s right to swing his fist (even if it makes him happy) ends where Sam’s nose or the noses of his employees or customers begins.
I am not political really and am more of a libertarian than anything, but you can go too far in any direction. Moderation is the key, but I despair of finding moderates anymore. There seems to be a political divide that is solidifying. That is to be expected, I suppose, when one side gets more reactive, the other will as well. I for one am in the place of saying “a pox on both your houses,” which makes me the weirdo in the nation at the moment.
sigh…..
Government is an important preservative force that protects us from the effects of mass selfishness and depravity. In a perfect, unfallen world it would not need to exist, but in ours there has to be something in that spot. Every time I feel grumpy about some reasonable government action, I remind myself that before 1974 I as a disabled person would have been stuck at home, stranded even from access to government buildings. There are many problems government cannot solve well, but I appreciate what it does accomplish. Oh, and I completely agree on the lack of centrist popularity. It is like this is a competitive sport with teams, and both sides are against anyone that isn’t playing for theirs.
Tokah: You make some excellent points. One that I would highlight is that the state exists precisely because humanity is fallen. More than anything, the state exists by Divine institution to keep humanity from destroying itself Hence, St. Paul’s words in Romans 13, for example.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the state (like all such institutions) can become so co-opted by sin that is becomes the “beast” as depicted in the Apocaplypse. We have seen several such regimes over the past century. However, I think it is pretty obvious that the U.S. government can by no stretch of the imagination be included in this category at this time, contrary to the opinion of some.
(insert group here) KKK? Would I be justified in refusing service to a robed Grand Wizard Dragon or whatever they call themselves?
But, either way – I do think that Libertarianism is a false philosophy: particularly in its Randian or Objectivist wing. It is simply another form of Liberalism or Modernism, which has its roots in the pagan resurgence of the Enlightenment.
Hey Aristibule, good to hear from you. It has been too long. Fr. Greg’s comment actually would agree with most of what you say in your post. Sometimes the State forgets its Romans 13 role and becomes a manifestation of the “beast” as depicted in the Apocalypse. As Saint John warns us, there will be many anti-christs before the Anti-Christ. It is in those times when we do refuse to obey the State. You and I may not agree on where the line is or on what subject, but we do agree that every Christian cannot simply blindly obey the government. The only government we may unquestioningly obey is the King of the Kingdom of God.
You guys sound stupid. This is about race and discrimination, not religion. Can’t you simply just say, everyone has equal rights without going into an all out scripture quoting service. After all, it is religion that has suppressed and discriminated more than any institution ever has. I WANT a resurgence of the enlightenment. Upon where reason stands as the light, not a biased, discriminating 2,000 year old book. Let’s keep this political, and leave the religion for your private Sunday indoctrinations.
Having said that, I’m a Libertarian, but I disagree with some libertarian views, such as this. I agree that we need racial discrimination laws, because if we didn’t, Christians would still be stringing up so called witches and trying to burn them at the stake, lol. Discrimination, whether it be racial, gender based, or religious, should be outlawed, or at least controlled. But I have to disagree when people less qualified get the job, or get into a college institution, because of their race. This is plainly reverse discrimination, and something needs to be done. This is why I’m also for separation of church and state. I will never vote for someone I consider to be “too religious”.
This is a good article. I will begin my impromptu response with the caveat that I am a libertaritan, though not an ideoligical libertarian of the Rand Paul sort. The libertarian “moral hunch,” with which I wholeheartedly agree, is that moral auttonomy is the foundation of all just political relations. For this reason, many strict libertarians, who are not at all racist, will agree that private property owners should have the discretion to exercise their property rights to refuse service to customers for any reason, including their race. We in the United States have made a collective decision, set forth in federal law, that property owners do not have this choice. That decision is morally defensible. It is not defensible on a strict private property rights approach that most libertarians have adopted. But it is defensible on the view of libertariansm as an approach to politics that makes indidivual autonomy the baseline for public policy decisions.. The first premise for this (now informal) argument is that everyone’s autonomy is equally morally valuable. It rests second on the minor premise that race discrimination in public accomodations in the context of a modern industrial society hampers the exercise of that autonomy. It’s not hared to see why. When we look historically at the civil rights cases Rand had in mind, they were, on the one hand, govermental inference with a right to contract. This is undeniable. But the right to contract is not a fundamdental right under American law. Nor, I venture out on a limb here, is it the principle right to which libertarians should lay claim. Instead, the fundamental right to which we may all lay claim as human beings, is the right to determine the own course of our own lives, subject to the equal rights of others do to the same.
The wrong move that libertarians have taken is the idea that property rights are prime over other rights. This is wrong. The fundamental right to human autonomy is the fundamental right. Properthy rights are morallhy subordinate to the more basic right to human autonomy, because property rights are morally defensible only insofar as they serve the more basic right to human autonomy.
There is a historical reason that libertarians have taken the stance they have. It is NOT due to racism or hating anybody. This is important to note and undersand. No effective commentator or critic of libertarians will do well to write them off as racist or morally deficient for some other reason. Instead, the reason that libertarins over the last century have attacked intrusions on property rights is becasue they see those intrusions as impositions interfering with the more fundamental right to human autonomy.
I do not have a simple answer to this question. My view is tha tthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, which required businesses offering public accomodations to persons travelling in interstate commerce without regard to race, is that the legislation PROMOTED human autonomy and was therefore libertarian in charchter. That is, there is a libertarian defense to civil rights leglislation that has been neglected and that libertarian politicians are not sufficiently well-versed to understand.
Race discrimination in public accomodations does not promote individual liberty. As an historical matter, we know that it interfered with individual liberty. The liberty interest that race discrimination it interfered with, i.e., interstate travel, was more fundamental than the competing interest from some vendors, i.e., the idea that they should be able to refuse service to anyone.
I have to close with an anecdote I received from my father. After his second tour in Vietnam, he served as an instructor in the US Army Ranger School in Ft. Benning, Georgia. He and two other soldiers (one was a black man) went to a bar for a break. The waiter said they would not serve him because they refused to serve black people. My dad told the waiter that if they did not serve all of them, he would tear the place apart (remember, he had just returned from Vietmam). The waiter complied with their request and served all olf them.
There is more than one moral to this story. The moral of the story I have in mind here is that if you have three vets returning from war and serving your country, the racial bias of the proprietor is insignificant. Also, if you don’t want three green berets to kick your ass, do the right thing.
There is a lot to like in your approach to libertarianism. Making free will (individual autonomy) of “higher value” than property rights seems to me to be a much better approach for a libertarian, particularly a libertarian who is a Christian. After all it was God Himself who created us with a free will, to the point that we were (in Adam) and are actually able to disobey Him. That is quite a bit of free will! On the other hand, when it comes to property rights, the Bible is all over the place. In fact, when it comes to property rights, you almost have to ask about which period of Bible history you are talking about as to what property rights mean.
Meanwhile, a property based approach to libertarianism leaves you quite open to Rand Paul’s problems. Property actually becomes a higher value than things like equality, life, liberty, etc. I would argue that this throws both the Bible and our American Constitution out of their proper balance.
Now, here is the challenge for Christians. Right now, among conservative Christians there is a major debate going on as to how much of Christian morality needs to be part of USA law. A Christian libertarian will probably have a different response on non-abortion issues than a Christian “right-winger.” And, frankly, Christian libertarians are tending to avoid that subject.
That’s why we need to leave religion out of it, and just make laws according to reason. Not everyone has the same moral outlook. We cannot cater to one religion, and believe that it works for the free will of all.
I would dispute the basic premise here. We do not believe that we are inherently autonomous. “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
You are right, there is a big difference between free will and autonomy. We are not created to be autonomous. But, we are created with free will. Thank you for correcting my inaccurate statement.
I think there is a lot to be learned from Imannual Kant over this subject. He was a profound leader in human autonomy. This statement makes a lot of sense.
Immanuel Kant was the paradigmatic philosopher of the European Enlightenment. He eradicated the last traces of the medieval worldview from modern philosophy, joined the key ideas of earlier rationalism and empiricism into a powerful model of the subjective origins of the fundamental principles of both science and morality, and laid the ground for much in the philosophy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Above all, Kant was the philosopher of human autonomy, the view that by the use of our own reason in its broadest sense human beings can discover and live up to the basic principles of knowledge and action without outside assistance, above all without divine support or intervention.
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047
And by the time post-modernism rolled around, it showed that Kant’s ideas of neutral reason were mistaken. There is no such thing as neutral reason.in the way in which Kant tried to argue for it. He may have been trying to find an empirical neutral foundation for decision making, but that failed. Nevertheless, much of what he said turned out to be useful for science, although even there the philosopher Kuhn in the 20th century showed that even science is not neutral.