Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

  • "On the technical question that Rachel Maddow put to Kentucky’s Republican nominee for Senate—was the government right to desegregate lunch counters?—Paul made a plausible reply," says William Murchison; "to wit, he abhorred not only racism but the notion of telling private property owners what they may do with their property" — What Rand Paul Got Right. "The worst feature of arguments over the use of government power to enforce particular moral outcomes is the tendency of the winners to sweep away all objections by means of their claim to righteousness," he goes on to say. "Thus with some of Paul’s critics: Don’t give us that stuff about what the Constitution allows or what the prescribed powers of government should be! Give us the results that Humanity demands!"

  • "I know he grew up hearing his father blast the Civil Rights Act at the breakfast table," says Thomas Fleming; "So did my children" — Rand Paul: Unprincipled Hero. "But my children, at least, learned that there were more fundamental problems with the legislation. Among the least of them is the violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. More seriously," he continues, "the CRA set one race against another, cemented into stone the ludicrous theory that all the problems and pathologies experienced by black people in America are the result of slavery and discrimination. It inshrined our national hypocrisy that people are pretty much the same and should expect roughly the same success in life."

  • "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty," said Congressman Ron Paul to his colleagues on the XLth anniversary of the bill's passage, "it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society— The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act. "America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act."
  • Labels: , , , ,

    Bookmark and Share


    Blogger love the girls said...

    He would have voted for it??

    Well, at least his comment on Obama's demagogy was better than what we can typically expect.

    Don't you wish Tom Fleming was running instead?

    8:02 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    Imagine a country in which Tom Fleming and Lew Rockwell represented the two mainstream political parties, and the neocons and neolibs were vilified as the dangerous extremists they really are.

    9:21 PM  
    Blogger love the girls said...

    Unfortunately, we already have most of Lew Rockwell's version including where it leads.

    11:13 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    I guess I must have missed the "anti-war, anti-state, pro-market" orientation of the post-Grover Cleveland era.

    11:35 PM  
    Blogger love the girls said...

    As I wrote, that is where libertarianism leads. It doesn't lead to the libertarian utopia they think it does because what it does do is remove the foundations of civilized society making way for fallen nature to do its worst.

    12:45 AM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    As Lew once said, paleolibertarianism sees religion as the bedrock of liberty. Without religion and the solid moral framework it provides, libertarianism would be a disaster.

    6:50 AM  
    Blogger love the girls said...

    Yes, I know what they want, but it just doesn't reflect what we know to exist.

    Libertarianism is to political philosophy what modernism (of which protestantism is a creature) is to natural philosophy and theology. They are disembodied theories which don't address material world because they finally have to address the empirical with some kind of non empirically discerned argument.

    The problem is not what they get correct, but what they get wrong because it's what they get wrong which leads to further compounded errors.

    Read Chronicles and note how their arguments and observations are virtually always grounded in tradition, the family, and similar. And then read the Mises Institutes materials and note how their arguments are grounded in a world without fallen nature where man is not by nature a social animal, either because they don't accept it, or because their practical applications can't account for it.

    12:41 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    Points well taken.

    2:45 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    But also, we might consider that the ancient liberties preserved, not created, by the Magna Carta and later documents are our tradition, as Anglo-Saxons. There is a danger in appealing to the greater Western Civilization of which we are a part while ignoring our own unique Anglo-Saxon heritage.

    11:06 PM  
    Blogger love the girls said...

    While it's difficult at times to distinguish that which is prior according to cause or nature versus that which is simply prior in time, tradition and the like; nevertheless, what I was attempting to get at is what is prior according to cause or nature. For instance the family is first prior to society not in time or tradition, but according to cause in that society exists for the good of the family. And secondly according to tradition which reflects that prior good.

    Tradition can be useful to look at if it correctly reflects that which is prior to it, but can also lead astray. For instance, if there was a tradition of denial of private property.

    11:45 PM  
    Blogger love the girls said...

    Let me add, nevertheless, you bring up a very good point, because cultural memory is essential to a society. My concern was that libertarianism is in error at a more fundamental level.

    11:52 PM  
    Blogger The Western Confucian said...

    This is interesting. I would never propose libertarianism to the Koreans among whom I live, simply because it is inconsistent with their cultural memory. Nevertheless, certain cognates, like Confucian meritocracy, can be found.

    Your last idea that "that libertarianism [might be] in error at a more fundamental level" is also quite interesting, given that the same might be leading toward the extinction of the same Anglo-Saxon culture which produced it. Still, I hold out hope, as I always do, for some middle way.

    1:02 AM  

    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home

    Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.