10
   

“I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort”, do you agree or disagree?

 
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:27 pm
Quote:
During the Civil Rights debate in Congress Barry Goldwater said “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort,” because it “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.”


The only exception for "public accommodations" mentioned by Goldwater and Bork and Friedman and Buckley and others is the "common carrier" exception: if you're the only hostelry in town or own the only means of transportation in town obviously you got a monopoly and can't exclude anybody who can pay for your service. In all other cases government interference with our rights and property is unconstitutional.

I support Rand Paul and the Tea Party. Let's get our government back.



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 9,450 • Replies: 161

 
dyslexia
 
  4  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:37 pm
there are, no doubt, enough total wackos here that there will be someone to agree to your use of reason.
ebrown p
 
  7  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:43 pm
Quote:
I support Rand Paul and the Tea Party. Let's get our government back.


Rand Paul is a nut case. He wants business owners to be able to exclude black people from their businesses, yet he wants to force businesses to let guns in.

I would rather take our government forward.
electronicmail
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:48 pm
@ebrown p,
You don't understand "common carrier" do you?
ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:50 pm
@ebrown p,
Just to clarify, I like Rand Paul... the Republican he beat would have easily won the general election.

Rand Paul; debating a key part of the civil rights movement and now defending BP for starting the gulf oil spill... it makes this race interesting.



0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:51 pm
@dyslexia,
So you support Jim Crow and its latest incarnation Jose Crow? Or don't you grasp the meaning of "common carrier" being a monopolistic exception? Or don't you know the interstate commerce clause?

The depths of your ignorance are unfathomable. Wait till November.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:53 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
You don't understand "common carrier" do you?


I understand the term in telecommunications... and the Google comes up with the a legal term about transportation.

I am deeply, genuinely and sincerely curious about where you are going with this term. Please explain.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:15 pm
@electronicmail,
I'm puzzled, big time, between Goldwater's “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort,” and the only exception.
kuvasz
 
  5  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:22 pm
@electronicmail,
The issue is not allowing businesses the right to discriminate. It is that if you allow it the government will have to enforce such discrimination.

Could someone explain to me how some restaurant business can discriminate on the base of race without having to call the police to eject unwanted customers?

Make no mistake this is an oblique attack on the Interstate Commerce Clause and indirectly on the philosophic judicial backbone of the New Deal social programs.
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:24 pm
@JTT,
I was quoting Judge Bork. "Common carrier" is a common law exception to private property rights going back to the Middle Ages in Europe. I'm not sure what your question is.
Quote:
Bork claimed he was a strict constructionist who would exercise "judicial restraint." In his view, too many judges (and Supreme Court justices) had been interpreting the intent of the Constitution much too broadly. He opposed the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a broad right of privacy that was not stated in the Constitution.
JTT
 
  6  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:42 pm
@electronicmail,
Luckily, Bork is a non-entity.

[/quote]The only exception for "public accommodations" mentioned by Goldwater and Bork and Friedman and Buckley and others is the "common carrier" exception: if you're the only hostelry in town or own the only means of transportation in town obviously you got a monopoly and can't exclude anybody who can pay for your service. In all other cases government interference with our rights and property is unconstitutional.[/quote]

I don't get this at all. This doesn't seem to square with a claim that one is unalterably opposed to discrimination.

It doesn't even make any sense. If there's one common carrier, discrimination is verboten, if there are two or more they can discriminate. Does that mean that two or three or however many there are can discriminate? I hope there's more to this because these folks seem like major idiots.

And of course, back then there was no need for any government action. Things were going along swimmingly for every minority.


roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 09:08 pm
@JTT,
Thanks. I'm glad to have someone with whom to share my confusion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  4  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:11 pm
http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac74/JacksonBrown/ph3.jpg

Apparently some people, including Rand Paul, don't think that this is discrimination
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:23 pm
@ebrown p,
Rand Paul, on Rachel Maddow, knew, crystal clearly, that it is racial discrimination. I've rarely seen a person so totally at a loss for the right words to extricate himself. I've not often seen a politician squirming like that man did.

Dollars to donuts, he'll not be back on The Rachel Maddow Show even if Rachel begs him.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 11:07 pm
@JTT,
It sure made for great TV though.

0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 11:59 pm
@ebrown p,
I'm sure his father Ron felt the same way during the 1950s and the '60s.
electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 07:52 am
@wmwcjr,
And he wasn't the only one, then or now. Goldwater called the 1964 bill "a grave threat" to a "constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government."

His legal aides were William Rehnquist and Robert Bork.
electronicmail
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 08:08 am
@JTT,
Quote:
If there's one common carrier, discrimination is verboten, if there are two or more they can discriminate. Does that mean that two or three or however many there are can discriminate?


Yes, if they're not acting in collusion. That's effectively a monopoly and that's the verboten bit.

"Common carrier" goes back to horse-and-buggy days. If you own the only one in town you must transport anyone who shows up with the correct fare, can't pick and choose.

Think of it as a "monopoly". That includes several sellers if they're acting in collusion. If the sellers are acting independently, then they can discriminate. But then the buyers also have a choice and they can discriminate in turn. Competition. Free market.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:03 pm
@electronicmail,
He now serves a host of bacteria. Finally, he's an effective politician.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 01:08 pm
@electronicmail,
Quote:
Yes, if they're not acting in collusion. That's effectively a monopoly and that's the verboten bit.


A monopoly is evil but discriminating against individuals on the basis of race is simply hunky dory. This is the thinking of Goldwater and those other idiots.

Quote:
Think of it as a "monopoly". That includes several sellers if they're acting in collusion. If the sellers are acting independently, then they can discriminate. But then the buyers also have a choice and they can discriminate in turn. Competition. Free market.


That worked really well in the American south. Rand Paul explained it perfectly on the Rachel Maddow Show.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Rand Paul just announced! - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Another Tea Bagger Rand Paul - Discussion by BigEgo
Sen Rand Paul attacked by neighbor - Question by jespah
Milton Friedman, Unperson - Discussion by Advocate
Rand Paul is a............ - Discussion by BillRM
Rand Paul is Not a Libertarian - Discussion by ebrown p
 
  1. Forums
  2. » “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort”, do you agree or disagree?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 11:23:39