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...Many supporters of Paul's statements, such as John Stossel, have sought to countenance this on economic grounds, believing that the free market will moderate the situation. Yet, such a view glibly ignores the existence of markets entirely comprised of ethnic consumers, such as the hair relaxant market or country music. I foresee the free market further segregating America as companies tailor their outreach to specific racial groups in order to maximize return. Think Tyler Perry's latest movie hawked at his line of grocery and department stores. Ostensibly, even with his iconoclastic notoriety, Dr. Paul couldn't voice such a anti-PC prognostication.
'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it...
However, Dr. Paul does rightly couch this in a moral framework: the moral right of a private business to associate with who they choose. While I oppose discriminatory practices in hiring decisions, as this exceeds the boundaries of "free association", a private company reserves the right to be racist. We can't arbitrarily restrict the notions of freedom because they happen to defy PC doctrine. We must accept a moral law as is even if it leads to morally reprehensible outcomes, such as aborting a child merely for being conceived in the "wrong" month.
Those that take umbrage at Dr. Paul's ardent ideological loyalty, itself a sin in our relativistic culture, do so based on a desire to impose racial desegregation and a perfunctory dismissal of HBD.
"If you look at any market for which we've done extensive studies, significant discrimination remains," Grant-Thomas said. "It's clearly better than it was. But there's still discrimination."There needs to be an HBD analogue to the common saying: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".
"There are plenty of private organizations that currently -- and legally -- discriminate on the basis of race, or other grounds, in their membership. That hasn't caused them to go under," he said. "Indeed ... in some key arenas -- like housing and schools, some people pay more for segregated settings."
Never attribute to discrimination that which can be adequately explained by genetic racial differences.The discrimination conclusion needs no further elucidation here. As for the other idea, the notion that "some people pay more for segregated settings", the author astoundingly believes one must choose his neighborhood with regard to diversity. I can't even argue with such lunacy. And is he that willfully deluded to ignore that crime rates correspond with geographic racial composition?
Finally, the idea that minorities would suffer massive exclusion from society represents a tacit admission discordant with liberal creationism. If minorities are afforded the same economic rights (no hiring discrimination), then surely they could develop and cultivate a parallel community of retailers and upscale residential units without need for white-owned ones. Simply, if we are to believe blacks and other minorities do not depend on the white majority's largess, they should easily maintain their own communities. The histrionics concerning Dr. Paul's statement belies the racial egalitarianism these individuals espouse.
23 comments:
What's the point of having a blog where most of your readers believe in HBD and then telling them the most obvious things in the world?
OneSTDV,
The biggest problem with Rand Paul is that he shows that he's not politically saavy enough to keep his mouth shut on matters that have already been long decided. And he revealed why Libertarians have such a hard time being taken seriously by the voting public at large.
As Obama, Gingrich and other politicos who are known for the smarts found out the hard way, you CANNOT intellectualize politics or public policy. Just doesn't work that way. Politics is a Gut-level Game, like it or not. And people vote with their guts.
Even if what you say about HBD wrt Black folks is true, the bottomline was that White folks - even those in the Deep South - were horrified to see Black folk being hosed with firehoses, attacked with police dogs, little Black girls being blown up in churches and Black people - including the elderly, infirm and Women/girls - not being able to take number one or number two in a public library or a gas station.
Sure, I understand Paul`s argument, and believe it or not, I don`t necessarily disagree with it. But the problem was, that Jim Crow showed all of us what can and wil happen if people are left to their baser instincts, which run directly contra to the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. Sure, in a perfect world, cooler heads would prevail, but that`s not the historical record of the world. And yea, I`m as antsy about the courts getting involved as anyone. But the simple truth of the matter was that a simplae majority of the American populace simply could not live with itself knowing that we had such stark inhumane treatment going on, and we moved to put a stop to it. Was it perfect? No. But the matter has been settled, One. Paul bringing this back up, less than a day after his primary victory, only reveals that he is not ready for prime time.
O.
Many supporters of Paul's statements, such as John Stossel, have sought to countenance this on economic grounds, believing that the free market will moderate the situation. Yet, such a view glibly ignores the existence of markets entirely comprised of ethnic consumers, such as the hair relaxant market or country music.
Stossel's libertarian thinking best explains Paul's motivation for questioning the Civil Rights Act, not yours.
Rand Paul (and I assume Rand Paul as well) wasn't expressing doubts about the Civil Rights Act because he was concerned about genetically based racial psychological differences (though both Paul's presumably are aware of the Bell Curve controversy).
Rand Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act was bad legislation because Paul is operating from a More-Libertarian-than-Though ultra-free market framework.
Even though I would bet both Pauls believe in the Bell Curve, they don't seem to care about hereditarianism and immigration much.
Ron Paul for example didn't mention immigration much at all during the campaign or say that he wanted to reduce legal immigration (I think Ron Paul wanted to increase legal immigration during his presidential campaign, but I'm not sure) and I haven't seen Rand Paul talk much about immigration in Kentucky.
The Pauls, like John Stossel, are strictly interested in applying free market principles to every aspect of American society, which is mostly nice, but they clearly have only limited interested in immigration.
Even if they believe HBD is real, the Pauls don't care one way or another about heredity or the Civil Rights Act, they are ONLY motivated by ultra-free market principles.
I foresee the free market further desegregating America as companies tailor their outreach to specific racial groups in order to maximize return.
How does specializing product marketing to ethnic niches lead to desegregation/integration?
Niche Marketing means that the country becomes MORE SEGREGATED because every ethnic group and cultural subgroup within each ethnic group is watching their own specially tailored TV shows and wearing their subcultures own specially tailored clothing styles, and so on.
This is in contrast to the even the 1950's where the entire country regardless of race and class were watching the exact same TV shows and wearing the exact same clothes and having the exact same hairstyles.
The basic issue here is that Rand Paul lost the argument even before he got to his point.
He lost it because he gave in to the notion that it would be better to have a World where nobody discriminates.
If we believe Rand Paul that it would be better not to have any discrimination, even on the part of people who happen to prefer it, why shouldn't the Government force people to not discriminate?
If we stupidly accept that as a goal, why shouldn’t it be pursued by Legal Means?
Rand Paul’s position makes no sense.
@ Obsidian:
I actually agree with almost your entire comment. Bravo.
@ TUJ:
Typo re "desegregation".
Paul surely does agree with Stossel's free market argument (an argument I point has some weak aspects), but in his comments on Maddow's show, he argues for the moral imperative of free association. I never did say he was arguing based on HBD, I don't know where you got that idea.
"Paul bringing this back up, less than a day after his primary victory, only reveals that he is not ready for prime time."
But it was Maddow who brought it up, not Paul.
Steve Sailer said:
Here on the Realist Right, we've frequently argued that the long-run unity of the U.S. is threatened by the Doomsday Machine interaction of racial preferences with the mass immigration of those eligible for them—the “protected classes,” basically non-whites. This combination of immigration and government discrimination on behalf of favored groups is exactly what made Kosovo a disaster.
On the rare occasions when the Establishment Right thinks about this, it puts its faith in a magic bullet: The Supreme Court might outlaw affirmative action. Then we can let immigration rip!
The reality is, unfortunately, that racial quotas are the inevitable by-products of our anti-discrimination laws. When Barry Goldwater explained how the 1964 Civil Rights Act would lead to quotas, Hubert Humphrey famously promised to eat a printed copy of the law if it ever happened. But merely a half-decade later, quotas were commonplace.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/quota_problem.htm
....
Well, if old Hubert were alive today, I'd buy him the hot sauce.
The sad fact is that the very laudable goal of eliminating racial discrimination in public life has led to all sorts of bad outcomes, such as reverse discrimination and the professional grievance industry. For how it plays out today, take a look at this, on the issue of "racial discrimination" in promotions in the Chicago Fire department:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/05/rand-pauls-remarks-about-the-1964-civil-rights-act-brought-forth-lots-of-talk-about-libertarians-and-lunch-counters-but-almos.html
....
The result?
"Nowadays the Chicago fire department simply gives everyone an easy test and then they hire randomly."
....
Obsidian's comments are good, by the way.
Sure, I understand Paul`s argument, and believe it or not, I don`t necessarily disagree with it. But the problem was, that Jim Crow showed all of us what can and wil happen if people are left to their baser instincts, which run directly contra to the ideals enshrined in our Constitution.
Which ideals are you talkng about? Many parts of the CRA are plainly unconsitutional. I don't see many people denying that. Instead what I see is people claiming that "sure, it was unconstitutional, but it had to be done anyway".
If we believe Rand Paul that it would be better not to have any discrimination, even on the part of people who happen to prefer it, why shouldn't the Government force people to not discriminate?
Right. It would be better if people exercised and watched less TV, so really, who could object if the government passed laws mandating these things? Spoken like a Muslim.
"Right. It would be better if people exercised and watched less TV, so really, who could object if the government passed laws mandating these things?"
I wouldn't mind if Television was banned, certainly.
But the main point here is that Rand Paul said he would've marched with MLK to try to get a World without Discrimination.
He thus has already agreed with the Liberal idea that you can use intimidation to try to stop people from practicing their right to Discriminate.
If a mob of angry Negros can intimidate a Business into serving people of different Races, and have Paul‘s full support, why exactly would he object to the Government doing it?
For this reason it isn't surprising at all that Rand now says he would've voted for the entire Civil Rights Act.
His opposition was gutless and worded in such a way as to have no real meaning.
Once you admit the Liberals are morally right in their goals, you turn the debate into a meaningless droning on about which methods are "too radical", and which methods "are not too radical".
Anti-White discrimination by private and public entities is a fact of life.
Whites are third class citizens in the US, particularly Straight White Males.
Examples: the Gates Foundation excludes Whites from scholarships. Hiring for Police and Fire, discriminates against Whites with the Highest Scores to hire Blacks (with low scores). Blacks are far over-represented in Government employment, in a White Majority Nation, while having the lowest education attainment and civil service exam scores of any race.
Obsidian -- Whites did not care much about Blacks because they all moved away from them. Thus the Civil Rights victory was because of the Suburbs and cheap private cars. If Whites as a majority were living among Blacks, rest assured that Jim Crow and the boot of racial repression would rest firmly on Blacks. Laws don't have an effect if enough people want to ignore them: See Prohibition, Drug Laws, Immigration Laws. Segregation ended because Whites found it easier. They no longer lived around Blacks.
Know any White person that wants to live around Blacks? That socializes with Blacks? That wants to send their kids to school with Blacks? Heck even/especially Obama doesn't want to send his kids to Black majority schools.
As for the Constitution, Obama, Kagan, Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, etc all agree: the Constitution is subordinate to foreign law and "international standards." Most recently decided in a case involving juveniles convicted of murder.
Kagan says the Constitution means whatever judges say it says. Thus, no meaning whatsoever.
Obsidian,
Matters long decided sometimes become undecided again.
Look at the Soviet Union. The Reds won. They had a totalitarian grip for a while. But it all fell apart several decades later.
Look at the high taxes on higher income levels in the US and Britain. The 90% top rate in Britain was cut in half under Thatcher. The US top rate went below 40%. These were seemingly permanent fixtures of the landscape.
Or look at segregation in the South. It seemed a permanent fixture. Poof.
One can not tell it by the reaction to Rand Paul but what the Left fears is that a lot of supposedly settled issues are going to become unsettled. What's going to make that happen? Cheap DNA sequencing. In the next 5 years the Left's ideological ramparts are going to get ripped apart by science.
Again, the Left's position seems secure. But the CIA wasn't projecting the collapse of the Soviet communist party in 1985 either.
@ FuturePundit:
Should we have a right to free association that is as strong as our right to free speech? The Left doesn't think so. Do you think the right of free association should be as strong as the right to free speech?
I'd say definitely yes. In fact, I'd say the right to free association is more expansive than our right to free speech.
"" While I oppose discriminatory practices in hiring decisions, as this exceeds the boundaries of "free association", a private company reserves the right to be racist. ""
Huh? You're saying companies should be allowed to be racist in who they serve, but not in who they hire? Strange distinction.
I never did say he was arguing based on HBD, I don't know where you got that idea.
Sorry, I got confused by your typo re segregation/desegregation.
Anyway, I think the Paul controversy over freedom of association demonstrates the problem with trying to elect extreme libertarians or extreme ideologues of any type: They get too caught up in ideological minutiae and academic crusades to relate their ideas to the everyday concerns of voters.
While Paul is technically correct that the Civil Rights Act violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of association because of his libertarian (not racialist) purity, he still got into trouble because most voters don't view the prohibition against businesses discriminating against customers as a problem.
And the reason voters don't they don't view it as a problem is because (as you pointed out in your corrected entry) the free market is so specialized for niche markets that white voters still don't have much contact with minorities.
For example, you rarely see NAMs in Starbucks or Barnes & Noble. And since whites still can engage in business activity fairly well (covertly) segregated from NAMs, there isn't much demand for repealing the sections of the Civil Rights Act which prohibit private businesses from discriminating.
However, this is not true of NAM dysfunction issues the DO noticeably disrupt the day to day activities of white voters such as crime.
White voters mostly are concerned with a policy's cause and effect, not abstract academic principles. This is the problem with candidates like the Pauls - they go on crusades for the sake of theoretical principles rather than focus on people's day to day concerns/cause and effect. For example, extreme Lew Rockwell libertarians love to make an issue about how federally mandated vaccinations in order to attend school violate some fine point of the constitution, while they are oblivious to the fact that most white voters don't really care because they can generally understand that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh any abstract state's rights issue.
To continue my point, look at how much more effective Gingrich's attacks on "Welfare Queens" and high crime rates were compared to Paul's message on Civil Rights.
The 1994 Gingrich Republicans were able to relate problems caused by minorities that were disrupting day to day life for white voters.
Even in liberal New York, Giuliani defeated Dinkins and won reelection in the 90's because his crackdown on NAM crime rates directly satisfied the day to day concerns of liberal, white New Yorkers.
In contrast, and as I noted above, Paul's Civil Rights argument didn't really resonate (though he will probably still win because the electorate is ready to vote out the Congressional Democrats) because there isn't any strong demand among white voters for removing the barrier against private businesses discriminating.
"Know any White person that wants to live around Blacks? That socializes with Blacks? That wants to send their kids to school with Blacks? Heck even/especially Obama doesn't want to send his kids to Black majority schools.
"
That's true,plus a large % of whites didn't have any contact with blacks, so it wasn't a big deal to have civil rights.The suburbs were all white and places like Chicago were and are mostly segregated.It's easy to force others to desegrate when you don't have to. Now whites are starting to be overrun with immigration and black movement to certain areas, so whites might change their mind when forced with the reality of being a minority. It might be too late.
While Paul is technically correct that the Civil Rights Act violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of association
It's remakable that you consider this to be "technically correct". The CRA is either constitutional, or not. As you admit, it's not. End of.
And a truckload of other bad stuff which many people dislike, such as busing and affirmative action, came along for the ride when that sham of a law was upheld.
Even in liberal New York, Giuliani defeated Dinkins and won reelection in the 90's because his crackdown on NAM crime rates directly satisfied the day to day concerns of liberal, white New Yorkers.
The fact that Rudy was to the left of most Dems on a wide range of issues did not hurt him in NYC either.
Now whites are starting to be overrun with immigration and black movement to certain areas,
The black American population isn't projected to grow very much because the black birth rate stagnated to the 2.0-2.1 range for the past 15 years after the Gingrich Congress cut back on welfare benefits to welfare mothers and increased law enforcement threw a third of the young black male population in prison during the 1990's.
The minority population is increasing because of Hispanic immigration, but even poor illegal immigrant Hispanics aren't as dangerous and disruptive as young black American males are.
so whites might change their mind when forced with the reality of being a minority.
It's not clear that the immigration driven demographic changes are important to the white middle class to cause the backlash you anticipate.
For example, Texas continues to attract droves of middle class whites despite the fact that the demographics of Texas are very similar to California's.
If immigration changes were that important to the white middle class then Texas shouldn't be able to lure so many white professionals.
The reason whites don't pay nearly as much attention to immigration as the racialists think they should is because it is still very easy for whites to insulate themselves from NAM dysfunction.
Even in countries like Peru, Mexico, and Brazil, the white middle class minority can still live very comfortably, politically and economically dominate their country, and completely ignore their nonwhite/mixed race lower class.
Looking at the experience of white Latin Americans, American demographics have still got a long, long, way to go before the white middle class will have their day to day lives disrupted.
"Even if what you say about HBD wrt Black folks is true, the bottomline was that White folks - even those in the Deep South - were horrified to see Black folk being hosed with firehoses, attacked with police dogs, little Black girls being blown up in churches and Black people - including the elderly, infirm and Women/girls - not being able to take number one or number two in a public library or a gas station. "
You're exactly right, Obsidian. Pretty much everyone hated what was going on back then. Look what segregation of that degree did to Birmingham, AL. That city could have been the economic hub of the deep south(was bigger than Atlanta until the late 60s) if it weren't for all the horrible things that went on there. Not only did many of the blacks leave for obvious reasons, but so did white residents, and the stigma attached to Birmingham was a major repellent to investment for decades to come.
Undisc Jew sez:
While Paul is technically correct that the Civil Rights Act violates constitutional guarantees of freedom of association because of his libertarian (not racialist) purity..
Dubious. The Civil Rights Act does not violate constitutional guarantees of freedom of association. In fact the CRA SPECIFICALLY exempts all clubs and institutions not open to the public. White racists are free to have their own private clubs and invite and serve only who they want. Numerous further restrictions are the handiwork not of the CRA but state and local courts at the behest of mostly white activists, such as white femminists seeking admission to private all-male associations, or white homosexuals seeking to restrict such groups as the Boy Scouts, or such "burning" issues as white homosexuals marching in the St Paddy's day Parade.
These having nothing to do with providing goods and services of sale like hotel rooms or restaurant meals. And to be noted again, the bulk of further freedom of association restrictions since the CRA have been at the insistence of various whites like white homosexuals and feminists. The 3 crucial freedom of associations cases in the 1980s - called the 'Robert's trilogy' by constitutional scholars -had nothing to do with blacks at all, but concerned white women wanting into all-male organizations, and white gays wanting to march in a parade.
It is typical of the race-obsessed HBD approach that it focuses so much energy on black civil rights, when the major actors involved in freedom of association restrictions today are white people. It is also typical of white liberals to use black civil rights to cover their own agendas. White lesbian Maddow played her own 'race card' and did not ask Paul if he would let women into the Rotary club, or let gays march, even though these are more relevant to said restrictions.
And the reason voters don't they don't view it as a problem is because (as you pointed out in your corrected entry) the free market is so specialized for niche markets that white voters still don't have much contact with minorities.
Doubtful. Most white voters of today are not too terribly concerned about the Civil Rights Act and its public accomodations standards because they know it is simply the right and decent thing to have those standards. They are not concerned about "HBD" theorizing, nor do not want to return to the backward days of Jim Crow, and they have no problem eating in the same restaurant as black people. They realize the ultimate stupidity and inefficiency and of Jim Crow. In addition, many intelligent whites also realized the negative effect Jim Crow had on America's standing in the world. Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points on just such issues, putting the US claim to "freedom", "democracy" and "justice" continually on the defensive internationally. There is an entire book on this and how removing the the embarassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, called "Cold War Civil Rights" by Mary Dudniak. Whatever the mix of factors, it is doubtful whether "niche markets" played any significant part. This is not to deny any niche influence at all, but there are other much more relevant factors.
This is the problem with candidates like the Pauls - they go on crusades for the sake of theoretical principles rather than focus on people's day to day concerns/cause and effect.
Indeed.
BamaGirl says:
You're exactly right, Obsidian. Pretty much everyone hated what was going on back then. Look what segregation of that degree did to Birmingham, AL. That city could have been the economic hub of the deep south(was bigger than Atlanta until the late 60s) if it weren't for all the horrible things that went on there. Not only did many of the blacks leave for obvious reasons, but so did white residents, and the stigma attached to Birmingham was a major repellent to investment for decades to come.
I would not say EVERYONE hated what was going on back then. There was less, but still significant discrimination in the North too, and white southerners with some justice pointed out various double standards. Nevertheless you are right that a significant body of whites in the US thought that segregation was morally wrong, or at least unreasonable in a practical sense, and did not have to "like" blacks to disapprove of segregation. Numerous HBD types, past and present however defend segregation as commendable and necessary, although today they are not as open about it as they used to be.
You are also right about the huge economic inefficiencies of Jm Crow, with things like separate facilities and separate customer service operations, and business lost by companies that wanted to invest in the south, but were hindered by Jim Crow laws. The Montgomery Bus Company for example, of the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, originally pleaded with the city AGAINST imposing Jim Crow, pointing out that blacks and whites had been riding the buses together before the laws with no problem. Such pleas were brushed aside as Jim Crow steamed ahead. Intelligent whites could realize the absurdities of Jim Crow - for example blacks nursed white kids, cooked for white families, nursed old sick white people, and even buried them, but were deemed "unsuitable" to ride on a bus seat next to a white person. The stulifying "politically correct" conformity of the south was instrumental in crushing or siderracking white dissenters who questioned the prevailing dogma.
As noted above also, many intelligent whites also realized the negative effect Jim Crow had on America's standing in the world. Indeed during the Cold War the Soviet Union scored huge propaganda points on just such issues, putting the US claim to "freedom", "democracy" and "justice" continually on the defensive internationally. There is an entire book on this and how removing the the embarassment of segregation became a matter of US security and foreign policy strategy, called "Cold War Civil Rights" by Mary Dudniak.
In short, getting rid of segregation was not simply a "nice" thing to do, based on the "feelings" of white "liberals." There were excellent economic, political, social and foreign policy reasons for burying its dismal carcass. Many more allegedly "uncaring" conservative Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over 80%, than white Democrats (around 60-63%).
Post a Comment