Philosophy versus Reality
I’m a very independent thinker, but the label I most closely identify with is libertarian. I get a bit agitated at times, however, with purists who claim that only their position can reasonably be considered ‘libertarian’. I suppose you could say that I believe fundamentalists within any movement are by necessity out of touch with reality, but a specific spark is ignited when dealing with “my own”, so to speak.
Widely discussed this past week, was Rand Paul’s appearance on Rachel Maddow’s show after his defeat of Trey Grayson in the GOP Senate primary in Kentucky. In what in my opinion was an attempt to derail Rand’s discussion on relevant issues by putting the focus on a topic settled half a century ago, the Civil Rights Act, Maddow asked Rand what his thoughts on the mandatory service clause of the CRA were. See for yourself:
Ultimately, Paul states that he saw the need for the legislation overall, amidst stating multiple times how much he abhors discrimination. Frankly, I think it was naïve of him to trust her not to do exactly what she did, which was put words in his mouth at the end of the segment, and create a racial issue out of thin air. Frankly, I’m disgusted by the fact that she got away with it and am disappointed that Paul didn’t cut the conversation off, knowing what would happen. Predictably, and just as Maddow intended, given Paul’s hesitancy to give her a direct yes or no answer (likely because of how insufficient a one word answer would be and how irrelevant the questions were to any modern political discussion), Maddow’s audience utilized this segment to paint Paul as a racist – despite his philosophically consistent, reasonably libertarian response to Maddow’s inquiries, rooted in the defense of an individual’s right to association.
…. But unfortunately, this is where things get hairy.
Rand Paul certainly isn’t a racist for being an ideologically consistent libertarian; and neither are his even harder-right counterparts who are against the CRA in its entirety because of how it calls for government mandates that threaten what is perceived to be the individual’s right to association. It’s disingenuous for Maddow and her ilk to suggest that such a notion is inherently based in racial prejudice, because it’s not.
The issue, however, is that we don’t live in a perfect world, and philosophy can only take us so far if the society we inhabit, is in fact ugly in some senses. In 1964, when the CRA was passed, the realities of race relations were, in fact, quite disturbing. If no one harbored any prejudice, there would obviously have been no need for the CRA and other such legislation. Problem is, people did – and enough likely still do for a USA without the CRA to be problematic; a point Paul actually agreed with despite Maddow’s smug attempts to paint him as being opposed to her on the issue as the segment ended. Frankly though, we have no idea whether or not segregation would yet again become a reality if businesses were free to deny blacks, or whomever, service based on race, or any other inherent, arbitrary quality they may possess.
The reason that I feel the need to speak out on this issue, despite the fact that I didn’t think I would bother getting into it, is because I’m not happy with the fact that in the wake of Paul’s appearance on Maddow, that libertarians are being fundamentally categorized as inherently against the CRA; which isn’t necessarily the case. There are many reasonable and very different libertarian ways to analyze and defend or refute Paul’s statements, and frankly, I tend to have problems with fundamentalists – both libertarian and hard left (who often, in the public eye, unfortunately become representative of entire groups), because of the unfounded assumptions they often make. Many seemingly purist libertarians seem to assume that as a rule of nature, there’s a market solution to every problem, and that if racism is not visibly running rampant in society, segregation could never again become a reality; a notion that’s impossible to prove, in my opinion. On the other hand, the Maddow’s of the world appear to think that if not for the benign hand of the federal government, that even today, if the CRA were to be repealed, segregation would become an immediate reality, and all of those lurking racists, who have been kept at bay only by government mandating their racism illegal, would immediately dig their KKK garb out of the basement and take to the streets.
Both assumptions are false, insofar as there is no way to prove either indefinitely, and both are rather extreme. Do I feel that society, and our notions about race have evolved since the 1960’s? I’d like to think so, which is why I believe the far-left assumption is false. However, I think repealing the CRA, or even some provisions of it to satisfy the “libertarian purity quota” would ultimately do more harm than good (which, as a side note, is not what I’m claiming Rand Paul was advocating, because he wasn’t. I’m responding more to seemingly “purist libertarian” defenses of his statements that I think politically, have done more harm than good for the cause).
When we look at the situation surrounding the provisions of the CRA pragmatically, the most harm that could be done by government action in this case is that an individual is forced to provide a service to someone he finds objectionable for arbitrary reasons unrelated to that person’s behavior. Inaction, however, can, and did, lead to relegating an entire group of Americans to second class citizenship based on race; an inborn characteristic that cannot be changed. Which scenario hurts a larger group of individuals more? I believe it’s a reasonable libertarian position to weigh the situation and note that in the absence of civil rights legislation, more individuals were hurt by being denied access to society than those injured by being forced to associate with people they may otherwise not have in a public setting. Although Barry Goldwater is an intellectual hero of mine, I’m sorry – but I’ve got to disagree with my main man on this one.
Speaking of people I generally agree with, Tom DiLorenzo, whose work I respect greatly, loses me on his analysis of this particular issue, because his hypothetical example is so far outside of reality that applying it to anything remotely realistic is impossible. The statement made by Mr, DiLorenzo’s that I take issue with is as follows:
Why do you (Maddow) think say, a Jewish restaurant owner, should be forced by the governent to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband, who just finished marching in a “Hitler Was Right” parade down Main Street (legally protected by your buds at the ACLU, of course)? Shouldn’t he be free to just say “Get the hell off of my property, you scumbag”? Do you really think that forcing him to serve the Nazi, as the Civil Rights Act would do if enforced, is conducive to freedom? What would give the Nazi a “civil right” to agitate and hector the Jewish restaurant owner in this way?
The problem with Mr. DiLorenzo using that example to refute the clause of the CRA at question is that legislation was passed to address a very specific problem. If and when the hypothetical that Mr. DiLorenzo describes arises in society to the point where it’s a systemic problem like segregation was, we’ll address it. That kind of theoretical example does us little good, because the truth of the matter is that the CRA was passed in response to the fact that widespread discrimination against black Americans was a reality. I’m all for libertarian thought-games when it comes to playing out the worst case scenarios of state action – but the consequences of government force being used to accommodate minorities in public business settings versus, say the potentially destructive abuses of power that come with the Patriot Act or an unlimited government power to redistribute private wealth cannot possibly be seen as equal. It seems to me that purist libertarians have a tendency to treat all instances of government action as equivalent in their potential for destruction of liberty; but in some cases, we do need to consider to what extent inaction is destructive to an individual’s right to be a relevant actor in the society we all occupy.
At face value, I agree that the protection of an individual’s right to association is paramount – but where libertarians sometimes alienate people and end up relegating themselves to the intellectual fringe is when we completely lose sight of the fact that we do live amongst each other. I agree that whenever possible, we should reject the use of government force, and ALWAYS scrutinize each action taken by the state. However, we mustn’t get so caught up in one notion of protecting the individual that we completely ignore the other side; the right of a reasonable individual to be a part of the society we all occupy by necessity.
I’m all for advocating market solutions to problems insofar as it’s possible to gauge success. I’m a capitalist, because I believe history has shown that nations with free markets thrive and as a result, the standard of living for everyone rises exponentially. On the other hand, socialist nations, from the militant USSR to welfare states in Europe like Greece that are currently failing, inevitably collapse due to unsustainable economic practices. Economically speaking, I’m an advocate of deregulation, because I see the success as measurable. When some libertarians try to apply the same pattern of thought to issues that delve more into the social realm, however, I think the point gets derailed, because it assumes far too much that isn’t necessarily so, as I noted above. The libertarians who claim that market forces will phase out racist companies assume that everyone is as benign and accepting of people as they are – but they have no way of knowing if their neighbor possesses bigoted feelings that could arbitrarily hurt individuals who fall into the category of their distaste. They also fail to consider the fact that people are lazy, and may very well choose factors such as price, convenience and access over refusing to be a patron at an institution with openly racist owners. In my view, that degree of libertarian purity, which assumes that enough people harbor no prejudice and a golden moral compass, is just as naïve as the trust in government held by those who support measures such as the Patriot Act or a socialized health care system. In my view, the central tenet of libertarian thought is that of upholding the individual’s right to pursue their own destiny free of coercion by others. Sometimes, though admittedly far more rarely, government inaction as much as government action, can create conditions antithetical to that pursuit.
This is what divides libertarians from anarchists. It has always been my understanding that libertarianism accepts government insofar as it protects the individual from harm. If an individual black person is denied access to the goods of society, how can he pursue his destiny? I realize that there is a libertarian argument to be made on both sides of this issue, and that it’s asinine for someone to be called a racist simply for pointing out that there may be some aspects of CRA legislation worth debating, which is all Rand Paul did. He certainly does not deserve to be labeled a bigot over it, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Overall, however, I think denying anyone access to a public good based on an arbitrary, inborn characteristic, be it gender, race, religion or sexual orientation, creates conditions that prevent an individual from engaging in the pursuit of happiness more than it hurts the individual business owner; who by opening a business that by its very nature engages in transactions with the public, is consenting to engaging with the people who make up “the public” at large. The CRA does not force anyone to accept a person that they find objectionable for any reason into their private home – but society functions in a public sphere and an individual cannot pursue happiness if they are categorically denied access to it.
Ultimately, though I agree more with Rand Paul in general than I do with him, I’m with Michael Steele on his analysis of Rand’s comments. Steele stated, quite simply, that in this instance, Paul’s philosophy got in the way of reality. Although Dr. Paul is my favorite to win this November, and I think he’d make an incredible Senator, I agree with Steele on this particular matter. What I hope – perhaps naively, is that Paul’s opponents take his comments at face value, and don’t attempt to falsely paint him as a racist. Rational political discourse cannot exist under such conditions; but then again, if political discourse and action were rational, we wouldn’t be faced with the problems in Washington that caused Dr. Paul to run for office in the first place.
Great post, Corie … agree with your assesment.
I think you dance around your main point a bit, but otherwise are correct: That libertarians must respect that the Constitution provides for the right of equal protection under law for all, regardless of race, color and creed. However, libertarians’ arguments are more valid when the debate strays from equal protection to political correctness.
Equal protection under the law allows for the prohibition of racial discrimination in the public sphere. But just as the right to free speech allows for vile or hateful speech, the right to private property allows for the owner of the property to disallow someone from his or her property for any reason. No one has the right to trespass on someone else’s property, so to disallow someone from doing so is not a violation of their rights.
…. And that’s the difference between businesses that exist within the public sphere versus one’s private home. I address that distinction in the blog. I know Rand would say (as he did), that such reasoning blurs the line between whether a business is privately or publicly owned – but I think making reasonable accommodations if your aim as a business owner is to engage in transactions with the public is fair; and not the same as being owned out right by government.
if you can disparage those of us with principles with the word “purist,” can we call you and this trash “dirty”? ;p
True, it would be, but it’s not the job of the government to make sure that a business owner “engages in transactions with the public”.
I was more addressing Rick than your article, but after having read it, here is where myself, Tom Woods, Tom DiLorenzo, John Stossel and Dan Bordeaux would disagree with you: The CRA was indeed necessary, but not because of the failure of the free market to prevent racism, but because there were racist and segregationist laws that were illegitimate and need to be overturned. The point that I think you’re missing, with all due respect, is that coercion is the enemy here for the libertarian. Just as coercive segregation is abhorrent, so too is coercive integration. Government has neither the responsibility nor the legitimate power to prevent people from doing what they would naturally do. If that’s de facto segregation, then that’s what it is. I think this country, if any, being the melting pot that it is, would be able to successfully avoid racial resegregation in any real sense, because the only way that segregation could occur again would be voluntarily, which is not the way it happened in the 20th century.
Now there certainly is something to be said for gradualism and incrementalism in terms of policy, which is why a libertarian politician should not take a stance against the CRA; however, there is nothing impractical about the stance in terms of how it would work in practice — it is only impractical in terms of taking a political position on the issue.
Andrew, I’m not disparaging people with principles when I bring up the problems with rigid ideological purity. It’s funny – I say that I feel conservative around libertarians, and libertarian around conservatives, because I’m constantly accused by libertarians for being unprincipled, and derided by conservatives for being too ideological. Frankly, I think that each political situation deserves its own analysis, and that for me, I tend to look at things through a fairly libertarian lens generally speaking. However, I think that sometimes, not every single scenario has a necessarily rigid ‘libertarian’ answer, and that often times, there’s more than one reasonably libertarian way to view a situation. What gets me is when people claim the corner on libertarian (or any philosophical) truth, when there are many valid points (often at odds with each other) to be made, within the context of that philosophy. All I’m saying is that rigid ideological purity, in general, tends to fall flat in some areas. It doesn’t mean I’m not principled; it just means I’m an independent thinker, and analyze each situation based on the facts at hand.
P.S. — not that I speak for any of the people I mentioned, but they all had articles this week in agreement with Rand.
What you said is fair, Jay, but I think the problem is that we can’t ignore the past; one in this country, that was rife with the discriminatory laws you cited. As a general rule, I agree with you that removing coercive laws but not going so far as to institute “corrective” ones is the best move. That’s why, for example, I’m against affirmative action. However, I think, as I note in the blog, that a special circumstance arises when dealing with access to the public sphere — and not ‘public’ in the sense that it’s owned by the government, but public in the sense that a service is provided to ‘the public’ at large. If a black person is being categorically denied access to the society we all occupy by necessity, how can he pursue his destiny? That’s the question I ask in the blog, and I think in this particular case, enough black individuals were being denied access to society, and therefore, access to potential success, that it was necessary to take action. What this comes down to, I think, is to what extent you view a business open to the public as private property. I guess I’d disagree with my further-right libertarian friends that a business is necessarily equal to one’s home. The entire premise of a business is that it engages in transactions with the public. That being the case, I think it opens itself up to being reasonably accommodating of ‘the public’ at large. I see and respect your point, but I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree.
P.S. — I know, Jay, and I disagree with them on this one, despite the fact that a safe 85% of the time, I tend to be with them on the issues.
yeah, i look at each political situation through the lens of my sniper rifle, but most folks would consider me a radical. ever thought of this: “sanitizing” a bigoted culture with more laws isn’t going to help end racism. if anything, it’s going to make those people more resentful and racist. also, a business exists to make a profit in the marketplace (ie, the public). the individual owners or managers can deny service for whatever dumb reason because they have the freedom to do so. that’s pretty basic-level libertarianism, but i guess i’ve gone too far…….
Yeah, I have thought of that, Andrew, which is why I’m not a fundamentalist libertarian. As I said to Jay a few posts above, “What this comes down to, I think, is to what extent you view a business open to the public as private property. I guess I’d disagree with my further-right libertarian friends that a business is necessarily equal to one’s home. The entire premise of a business is that it engages in transactions with the public. That being the case, I think it opens itself up to being reasonably accommodating of ‘the public’ at large”
Fair enough, we’ll agree to disagree, but allow me to address one of your points before we do: It is true that private businesses provide the public with a particular service. There’s two separate reasons why I disagree with your view on this; First, there’s a slippery slope to allowing the government to dictate what a private business owner can and cannot do. Once you open Pandora’s box (which, granted, this was done before the CRA) on restricting private business owners, then there’s really nothing that cannot be restricted, including who must be served, what must be served, how much must be served, etc. and so on.
Second, while it is true that private businesses provide a service to the public, a) they are not forced to do so and b) unless there is some government-sponsored monopoly, they are not the only company that can do so. So, if they are not forced to be a business, or to provide a service, to do so is to provide a service that otherwise would not be provided. One of the reasons why I don’t think even repeal would change things (this speaks to the effectiveness of the law) is that when it was enacted, businesses that previously discriminated, by and large, did not close up shop in protest — they continued pursuing their business, because they cared more about making money than their personal biases.
And, since in most cases (I would oppose allowing racial or other such discrimination in businesses that have an artificial monopoly, like cable/utility companies) businesses that discriminate will have to compete in a free market, if they exist at all, they won’t be very successful. I think it is less practical to assume all white business owners would collude to discriminate against blacks. JMO.
wow, that’s completely ridiculous. would my home become a business if i started selling my collection of comic books on my front porch to this nebulous “public”??? would my home then be subject to government regulations? or is it a good thing we have zoning laws in place to make those lines a little less blurry for all the non-purist philosophizers?
Andrew, it doesn’t have to be “completely ridiculous” just because you disagree.
no, it’s completely ridiculous because it lacks any reasonable philosophic footing.
Actually, Andrew, no, it doesn’t. I addressed the point in my blog – and why I balance your concerns with the issues surrounding what happens to the pursuit of liberty when individual blacks are relegated to second class citizenship. I think I’m done with this conversation, though, because I’m not really a fan of what I perceive to be your tone. People can agree to disagree without calling each other completely ridiculous. There are many reasonable lenses through which to view certain situations – and simply because you disagree with someone doesn’t make their argument inherently worthless.
To Andrew’s point, the reason we libertarian fundies are so strictly ideological is because once you start straying from the ideology, you begin to contradict yourself. I completely understand your position, Corie, as it was one of the last issues from which I converted to libertarianism, but as callous or politically incorrect it may sound, it is consistent with libertarian philosophy. True, disagreeing doesn’t make you not a libertarian (given that I was told I wasn’t conservative at CPAC about 20 times, I understand where you’re coming from ), but there will be some cognitive dissonance involved when you stray from the ideology, and you open yourself up to criticisms, as you’ve seen lol.
Jay, your point is exactly why I’m not a LIBERTARIAN in the fundamentalist sense. As I state at the beginning of my blog, I’m an independent thinker who most closely associates with libertarianism. It’s not like me to follow any one philosophy 100% – so if I’m told I’m not a libertarian in the purist sense, I’d agree with you, because you’re right, I’m not – and I don’t take it as criticism when that’s pointed out. All I’m saying is that there’s a difference between sticking to a philosophy with 100% rigidity, and using some of the philosophy’s ideas to explore, and yes, even defend, other positions and outcomes. I don’t like ideological purity because I think it gets in the way of independent reasoning, and we end up losing out on discussing many reasonable viewpoints and applications of a certain philosophy, which I think is too bad.
Fair enough. Have a good one, Corie.
You too, Jay.
corie, i’m not calling you completely ridiculous. i’m calling your stance on the basic issue of public and private property totally inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. that was really my only point. have a nice day!!!!!!
Ok, Andrew, lol. You just came across as really combative. My point was that I’m not a fundamentalist libertarian, so I wouldn’t expect those who are to agree with me. Have a nice day too!
It was a good article, Corie. I think you covered the issue well. A business uses public resources in a specific way and is granted certain protections by the state, protections and circumstances different from one’s home. An absolute pure libertarian is hard to define, as we all interact with each other, and like it or not, we influence (what distinguishes influence from coercion?) one another to varying degrees. And the slippery slope argument is the worst argument that can be made, no matter where you step it is always on this slippery slope, it doesn’t just suddenly start at some particular point. We are all willing to be on the slippery slope until we reach a point where we individually don’t feel comfortable. Trying to totally avoid the slippery slope means not getting out of bed in the morning or taking any form of action.
I agree 100%, Keith. Well said.
Labels are so much fun, aren’t they? I would rather prefer to eschew labels — except it would make it harder to carry on a conversation.
It all comes down to the semiotics of the situation. And the “semiotic map” in each of our heads are going to differ a bit.
I don’t believe in being a “pure” anything. Kinda silly, really. What do you really gain from being a pure “X” (fill in your favourite -ian)?
Labels are over-simplifying. Life is much, much, MUCH more nuanced!!!!!!!
Whoops. Was I waxing didactic again?
How does the fundamentalist libertarian cope with the point that as a society (via our elected officials) we decided to cede a certain freedom (ie excluding based on race) in exchange for a full extension of the rights of citizenship to an injured class of people? We do it all the time, and did it in this instance with eyes wide open. Sometimes we as a country agree that a policy consideration supersedes some right ordinarily held for the betterment of our society.
Keith addressed the slippery slope argument but the truth is once we congregate into any group of people larger than one we’re threatened by the possible coercion of others. It sounds to me that the type of “freedom” espoused by some is actually anarchy.
i think “we” would be better off as a society if “we” would stop seeing the state as arbiter of our society. but i know that there are a lot of collectivists that disagree with that…
What “I” would say is that “I” am part of a collection of people. The state is not arbiter of our society, but it is bound to protect the laws. “I” like it that way because the state has the sword and can ensure that every citizen is equally protected under those laws.
it’s a nice theory and all, but i really see nothing but a lot of unequal protection in our big pool of individuals in this big block of land. that shouldn’t be too surprising considering the State has historically been an instrument of an elite class. the sacred “Law” doesn’t really work to protect anyone but the politically-connected and powerful. in fact, it’s really just used to hurt people who don’t have the money to pay for a lawyer.
The fundamental idea of the “state” is that it is the arbiter of our society. This “state” that you speak of is not some abstract idea; it is a collective group of other members of the society who we choose to arbitrate disputes. The “state” is where we find common ground with the other people in our society. Without this common ground, there is no society, just a bunch of individuals. In having any kind of interaction with other people, we have to set some rules of this interaction, ie. laws, and have some way of determining if the rules are being followed and have some way of punishing people who are not following the rules set forth. Instead of everyone arbitrating, we have representatives that we allow to exercise their judgement in our stead. This is the “state.”
i have a lot of common ground with my community, and strangers for that matter. none of that common ground involves a monopoly on violence and the “rules” that the arbitrators of the law don’t even apply to themselves. like i said, nice idea and all (i guess), but in reality the so-called government does more harm than any purported good. it’s time to let the barbarous relic go.
you should be in kentucky to manage him. Only 3 people in the history of Meet the Press have cancelled a scheduled interview
“Sometimes we as a country agree that a policy consideration supersedes some right ordinarily held for the betterment of our society. ”
Isn’t that how the *problem* came about?
That anything close to the 50% + 1 required to use “the sword” ACTUALLY believe this is frightening and I neither consent nor concede to that notion.
“Those who hate freedom dare not admit it openly, rather they label it ‘anarchy’ so as to make it easier to convince themselves that their hatred differs from that of a tyrant.”
-Anonymous
well he must be the first to cancel on the new Meet the Press.
@Keith, on the “common ground” bit, let me tell you about the “common ground” and the “equal protection” in my divorce case.
In our mommy-biased family courts, the “mommy” wins despite being a total screwup. The dad loses despite doing everything “right”. I had no idea nor would have believed how bad it is had I not experienced it myself.
But not to beat that dead horse, I have another bone to pick.
@Rob, on the “injured class” of people — no such thing. And how condescending for someone to be thought of as a “member” of that “class”. “Injured Class”, “Protected Class”– man, how degrading.
I can see that point Fred. If it’s offensive to you I certainly apologize.
But so I can be clear, at the time the CRA was passed about 100 years after the Civil War wouldn’t you say that former slaves and their families were at least in some way suffering an injury at the hands of government sanctioned discrimination? Would the injury flowing from that create a group, or class of people suffering similarly? If you don’t see the government as responsible for creating laws to curtail it’s own power to injure historically abused groups of people, then I don’t see how anything but anarchy is the solution.
@Rob, the individuals that were enslaved all those many years ago were indeed injured by the experience. And yes, the government was right in the middle of it.
But that was a very long time ago, and no one alive today was a slave — at least in that sense. It is quite nonsensical to claimed that some of those living *today* are in that same “class”. American Slavery in the past is not something anyone can “own” today.
Today, though, you do see that government continues to sanction discrimination. Just that the modus operandi is different. The government today fosters discrimination on the basis of gender, “race”, marital status, aboriginal status, country of origin, economic status, political association, and more.
Today, the government favours women over men, “blacks” over “whites”, married over single, mummies over dads, rich over poor, poor over the middle class, “patriots” over “terrorists”, and so on.
It has us so divided against ourselves, so enrapt in turmoil over “the other” — and yet, it then puts itself forward as “The Solution” — to the problem it created in the first place.
What a joke.
On of the first steps to Freedom is to eschew all the government-sanctioned labels it has given us to keep us divided. We can just refuse to play the game.
Just walk right up to the “King” and tell him to his face that not only is he not wearing any clothes, but that he is also not very well endowed.
Nicely written article Corie, I can completely appreciate your struggle between the fundamentalism of the cause verus the reality of our world. I am still struggling with the entire Rand Paul debacle in terms of what he said, but find the entire situation to be comical – a hammer used by the MSM to bludgeon an honest politician. We are now longer allowed to speak our mind in the name of political correctness. Why can’t we go on public television and question the CRA? Why not? We are not denying racism, we are simply questioning whether this was the best approach. It is obnoxious what debate boils down to these days.