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

there are, no doubt, enough total wackos here that there will be someone to agree to your use of reason.

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.

You don't understand "common carrier" do you?

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.

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.

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.

I'm puzzled, big time, between Goldwater's “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort,” and the only exception.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks. I'm glad to have someone with whom to share my confusion.

Apparently some people, including Rand Paul, don't think that this is discrimination

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.

It sure made for great TV though.

I'm sure his father Ron felt the same way during the 1950s and the '60s.

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.

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.

He now serves a host of bacteria. Finally, he's an effective politician.

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.



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