i wish she had asked him where his heart is to not DEFEND basic rights with laws....

Midgey:

You would rather the racists be able to hide behind the law and not be exposed. If they discriminate then they go out of business. That kind of behavior does not fly today. Why do you want to protect racists and keep them in business?

I have to disagree that the country was well on it's way to integration and that the Civil Rights Acts caused a lot of bitterness. There's till bitterness in certain areas when racial epithets are common among certain company and minorities are blamed for all that's wrong in those areas.

If you had let integration happen naturally, you would still have areas where minorities and women dare not tread and would be bare by law from doing so relegating them to second class citizenry.

Liz...sad thing is there STILL are areas where minorities and woman cannot tread, even with laws in place! Rand Paul is out of his mind....he's just seeking attention.

Left to our own devices we humans rarely do the right thing. Proof is abundant. Bernie Madoff's crimes were extraordinary, his morals are common. BP gambled and lost, the gamble is taken daily. Rand made Rachel's point for her at least twice when talking about how far behind the south lagged in racial equality. It was only when, and because, the Civil Rights bill was passed that parts of the south did the right thing. That it is made obvious by institutional racism that still exists there. A grand example is racially segregated high school proms that are still the norm in many places. Rand is one of the new breed of revisionists who have gotten so carried away with themselves that he is now to revising in real-time. Ducking questions is one thing, but to repeatedly state that a yes or no question has more depth is lying. I for one refuse to give him the benefit of any doubt. He was scared and lying his way out of it, despicable. Thank you Rachel.

//
//

pastol:

It's sad that you put such little faith in people to do the right thing.

It's scary that you instead put that faith in government, which by the way is not some monolithic entity. It's made up of the same people you distrust to do the right thing.

On a different note, her question was framed in a way that would make him look bad regardless of the answer. He answered the question properly, and made the most important point: He isn't interested in any way shape or form in reforming, revising, or repealing the act.

This was simply an attack piece. He made his point abundantly clear (that you disagree with it or did not get the answer that you wanted is another issue), at which point Rachel was just trying to debate him on it rather than move on as she said she was.

"It's scary that you instead put that faith in government, which by the way is not some monolithic entity. It's made up of the same people you distrust to do the right thing."

You're absolutely correct, government is not a monolithic entity. We live in a democracy. If you don't trust the people running your government, vote them out. Or you can run for office, or start a lobbying group, etc.

You're absolutely correct, government is not a monolithic entity. We live in a democracy.

Actually we live in a Republic!

I think he fits right in with them. He is a theorist who refuses to make any practical applications from his abstractions. You can tell who the slimiest politicians are because they never get into specific examples of how they would apply their principles. Rachel rightfully kept hitting home on this point and Paul was so out of his element he tried to pull the "I'm not falling for that high-flautin' liberal elitist gotcha talkety talk" line and it hit the floor like a pancake with a roach in it.

AlienProtagonist - I have to disagree, as Rand Paul did provide a specific alternate scenario that is actually relevant at present, regarding whether or not a private business can limit the possession of guns in their establisments. I think the Civil Rights Act did speed along desegregation, but I think it also caused more bitterness about the situation, and may have made it taken longer for the south to accept the equality of blacks. I think had institutions been the only element desegregated, that children growing up toghether, and goverment officials being an example for the society would still have effected full desegregation, it just would have taken longer, though been less violent.

I was dissapointed at how slippery Rand Paul came off in the questioning; he clearly didn't expect the extent of pushback Maddow gave him on the topic. I think he thought it would be a talking point among several. It reminded me of Ron Paul on Countdown with Bill Maher when they ended up getting stuck on whether Lincoln had the right to make the Emancipation Proclamation as an example of overstepping Executive power, and whether the war was about slavery or not. The postion of both Ron and Rand Paul is a difficult one, combining social liberalism (anti-racism, anti-violence, etc) and constitutional conservatism. People seem to have trouble seeing more than 2 colors in the political spectrum.

DGreenie said:

"I have to disagree, as Rand Paul did provide a specific alternate scenario that is actually relevant at present, regarding whether or not a private business can limit the possession of guns in their establisments. (sp.) I think the Civil Rights Act did speed along desegregation, but I think it also caused more bitterness about the situation, and may have made it taken longer for the south to accept the equality of blacks. I think had institutions been the only element desegregated, that children growing up toghether (sp.), and goverment (sp.)officials being an example for the society would still have effected full desegregation, it just would have taken longer, though been less violent."

In other words (just to be plain) you think that "Having your cake and eating it too" is actually a workable solution to Rand Paul's position? That's like saying that you support the building of dams but believe a river has the right to flood and drown private business'. Which is it?

The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not a gray issue and owning a gun is an accepted part of that noble effort. However, my right, as a business owner, to not allow guns in my establishment is sound because they pose a deadly threat to my customers, staff, and myself. The same cannot be said about barring people because of my racism, homophobia, or ethnic and religious prejudices. Get it?

DGreenie, to say that the Civil Rights bill "...may have made it taken longer for the south to accept the equality of blacks" is a huge assumption. When exactly did the south accept the equality of blacks? Do you really believe that has happened? There is more than enough evidence that it has not happened. And the non-acceptance is not limited to the south.

Pastol, that is part of my point. I think society evolves, that slowly convincing is more effective than flat out forcing. Maybe, had we taken the approach of desegregating institutions only, society would have evolved to accept equal rights by now. Obviously there's no way of knowing for certain, it's just a theory. I personally think the end justified the means in the case of the Civil Rights act.

And I know that taking guns into an establishment is not a perfect metaphor for "whites only" lunch counters, but the legal precedence of how we treat ownership was the common ground for the two issues. Recently, the Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance laws tends towards providing a business with First Amendment rights, by saying there's no limit on how much an individual or company can contribute to a campaign. I think that will have terrible repercussions in encouraging corruption, but at the same time, the decision supports a business having the right to make decisions about how to run the business and manage their money regardless of the negative societal effects. I think the business should be allowed to peacefully make their statement by serving or not serving whom they wish, as long as it remains peaceful and not detrimental to the health and safety of those they refuse to serve.

After making this post, my roommate and I discussed the interview, and he gave me more food for thought. He said that utility companies and groceries were refusing service to blacks, situations where there was no alternative business to turn to. That point certainly weakens my stance. At the same time, is eating at a particular restaurant really a right?

I dont think that Rand Paul answered the questions badly. I think that this was the wrong issue. We need to talk about jobs anare posting this comment to a publicly viewable discussion.

haha ok sure buddy, You're not the first one I've seen today try to dismiss what Rand Paul said with wanting to talk about jobs.(I spent 2 hours watching #Rand #Paul #Maddow trends on Twitter tonight) So you might want to take inventory to see if your thoughts are your own.

I don't know about you but I like to know if my politician is on the same page or at least a compatible ideology before we start talking about solving problems. If you think these are the 'wrong issues' then maybe you should go follow an issue specific news thread.

To be fair, he did talk about jobs - in regards to the ADA. He suggested that a business who hired a wheelchair bound applicant might choose to place them in an office on the 1st floor rather than put in an elevator.

My guess is that without the ADA, the business would just wait and hire an applicant that was able to walk up the flight of stairs (and white and male, and possibly even a gun-totin' fundamentalist)

Welcome to the Tea Party, Dr. Paul!

And Thanks Rachel for sticking to your guns (figuratively)

S

Also, how are the handicapped taxpayers/citizens/patrons going to get to the second + floor? It's not just about the employees.

"Gotcha questions" are now defined differently in the conservative movement. Any question Sarah Palin can't truthfully answer is a 'gotcha question'. Therefore the population of "gotcha questions" approaches infinity; it's why conservatives call people like Ms. Maddow the "lamestream media" don't cha know.

"It is those people that public policy must address."

Forcing people to behave in a way that makes you feel good isn't a valid function of government. People have the right to make their own decisions, good or bad, about how to operate their businesses, with whom they wish to associate, and who they want to allow onto their property.

The fact that you dislike those decisions means absolutely nothing.

The desire to impose your judgement on other people - to use force to make them behave the way you want - is the essence of criminal thinking. Unless the individual in question has actually initiated force against someone else, either through violence or fraud, your only possible valid responses are to speak out and refuse to deal with that person. Anything you do to force your idea of "doing the right thing" on him violates his rights.

With all due respect, I disagree. If you are going down an Alabama highway and are low on fuel, you stop where ever you can find fuel. If that station refuses to sell you petrol, you are out of luck and potentially out of gas. I agree with your un hooding the racists once and for all, but not in a way that enables the racists to literally or figuratively lynch anyone.

I lived in the South for a time and I witnessed some ugly @!$%#, but I spoke up and did not let it go unsaid. If a congressman allows these practices,,,public or privately,,,he is a racist...Do you really think Dr. King would allow this cracker to march with him?

Wow, this comment shared a bright light and a valuable truth. I can understand this position and have a better open mind.

To pavana tanaya

Your comment makes it seem like you are against racism, then you used the word "cracker". Um...uh...is that word not considered racist to you?

I agree with you 100%

I'm with Bruce, I can understand that perspective, and agree with most of it.

I worry though, that it still theoretical, and in application, things will get very ugly, very quickly.

Oteil

The problem with racists having their hoods off is that they look just like everyone else. What they need are swasticka badges or burning cross badges to be worn on their clothes at all times.

And while it may seem counter-intuitive, segregation, at least in one instance was very good for black business owners...that is, it was good for a while. I'm talking about Greenwood in Tulsa, pre-1921. Its a dear subject to me because I live in Tulsa. The way it worked was that black money earned in or outside of the black part of town, stayed in the black part of town - the sole recipients being black business owners. It was for very good reason that Greenwood was called Black Wall street. Then in 1921 the Race Riot happened. 35 to 55 square blocks of businesses, churches, hospitals and homes were destroyed. What happened could safely be called crimes against humanity were perpetrated against the black community, no a single white person was arrested but all the black folks the authorities could get their hands on were duly rounded up and held in mass detention......sorry. I digress. All of this happening was NOT the death of Greenwood. The end of Greenwood began with the Civil Rights Movement. Of course North Tulsa, the Black part of town, never recovered...to this day it is commonly held that white folks go to Northside ONLY 1) to buy drugs 2) to pick up hookers 3) to get themselves killed. It remains desperately racially segregated still, and as economically depressed as any inner city community.

The Civil Rights Act was the beginning of that. No longer restricted from spending their money outside of their communities, they did so and Greenwood languished. The end of Greenwood was when they built an expressway through it without the courtesy of an underpass. Bisecting it and driving a stake through its heart as a community.

I'm not saying that segregation is good...far from it. But there is alot to be said for boycotting businesses, and supporting those that support you and your community.

And Pruth...I am nominally white (like most other Okies I'm a lighter brand of Heinz 57: 1/16th Mexican, some Native American, and too much white to be called anything else) and I have a near irrational hatred of racism (sue me, my parents were hippies.) I have nearly as rabid a hatred for Nazi-KKK-Cracker-Peckerwoods. If you can't wrap your head around it...just call me a misanthropist. Peace Brah. And amen Oteil.

Liberals Don't Care About The Reality of The Civil Right Bill. I Guess Having The Right To Work For A Racist Is Intelligent. I'm An African American And I Follow The Teachings of Malcolm X. But I'm Tired of Liberals Using Racism As Crutch To Smear Republican Candidates. But I Do Think The Tea Party Have Some Racist Element In It And Alot of Republicans Are Closet Racist. But I Don't Think Rand Paul Is A Racist

Cracker means racist. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

And by the way Pavana I toured the deep south in 15 passenger vans in the 1990's and believe me you better know where to not be out of gas ahead of time anyway. And yes I do think that King would have let Rand Paul march with him. King and company were about coalition building. Rand Paul said he agreed with 9/10ths of the Civil Rights Bill. Everything is so hyper divided nowadays. King was a Republican for Christ's sake.

And Don Quixote, I guess I assumed that if they had a "whites only sign" on their restaurant than they were in effect wearing their Swastika on their sleeve anyway.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the real racists will always alienate themselves from true Libertarians because they are really against individual freedom for all. And I think that Rand Paul is a true Libertarian. I hope he doesn't prove me wrong. I've always liked his dad.

Let me leave you with another thought. I don't mean this to be a direct analogy but jut something to ponder. Say I invest my life savings in my longtime dream and open a restaurant, then 10 Klansmen come in with full regalia on. Should I be forced to serve them? What if I have little old Black ladies eating there who can "remember when"?

Shalom,

ob

Oteil,

Black man to Black man, do you really believe by making it okay for private business to re-institutionalize racism, it will be BETTER for us?

Racism is bad business. But how bad is it when everyone subscribes to it? If you're thinking in terms of a lone business in a town with a variety of options in that business's scope of goods and services, yes you can find other ways to spend your money and support merchants who don't discriminate. But what happens when it becomes more mainstream and a more acceptable idea? Never mind the inconvenience of driving past several businesses to go to one that will serve you, what about the humiliation? I remember visiting my relatives in the south, a certain chain franchise has two locations on the same stretch of road within seeing distance of each other. When I asked my relatives why we were going to one that was further away, they said because "that's the one WE are supposed to go to". They accept that as custom. It's not sponsored by the government, but it's unwritten law in the part of the south they live in. It is still that way to this day. Growing up in the north, that was new to me. And it didn't feel good to know that I wasn't welcome simply because of the way I looked. It's shameful that it's still accepted by the people who live there and even more so by the people who caused it to be that way. I don't want my children to ever feel like there is something they can't do because of the color of their skin. My children are American, and if they want to be president, or an astronaut, or a football star they can. And likewise, if they want to eat at an establishment that's open to the public, they should be able to without fear of persecution. It is true that people feel more comfortable with their own and in a lot of cases naturally segregate themselves (at least in America). But it's one thing to segregate yourself and your family by choice, it's another thing when you don't have a choice. Unfortunately, it took federal legislation to do what the individual states wouldn't do themselves. And now, Rand Paul has run as a states rights advocate. He keeps referring to letting the "local" people handle these affairs. This alone doesn't make him a "racist". Honestly, I don't know the man well enough to determine if he is racist and to what extent. But I do know the man seems to support allowing business to do as it wishes without regard to discrimination and that's just as damaging to our rights as if he was a die-hard Klansman. The problem with him are not his racial viewpoints but his politics. His libertarian philosophies will help bring deficits down but also reduce the size and scope of government. And as a society, out government does a lot of things that we have come to depend on and the lack will create major hardships for a lot of families. So as an American, I respect your right to support businesses discriminating against whoever they wish. But as a Black man living in the south, I ask you, what will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you why they can't eat at the restaurant around the corner?

And Bruce Evans, what truth was exposed to you by this comment? That black people want to be segregated against? Keep in mind, Oteil is a successful artist who misses a lot of everyday racism that common black people run into a lot more regularly. I'm sure Richard Steele doesn't worry about racism like I do either. Don't let the opinion of one black man who grew up and benefited from the civil rights act downplay the importance of any part of it or let it assuage your concerns about the morality of letting people discriminate legally.

Lee Payne

Political Science/Secondary Education major, Parkland College

Rantoul, Illinois

P.S. Don't stop asking the hard questions Rachel! We need them now more than ever!

Sorry Oteil Burbridge,

I'm a black American too (not that it matters beyond objectivity but)

I think you have to spend some time thinking about the repercussions of Rand Paul's Separatist ideology. It's pretty clear you haven't thought it through.

Although I would share in your view "Why would you want service from a racist" Which is a choice. You'd change your tune pretty quick if you lived in an area where all private establishments had the right to not serve you.

For example your position would be to live and let live when that 'private' swim club didn't want Black and Hispanic kids in their property (mind you I live about 25 miles from that place) so it hit home.

Do you realize he pretty much said if minorities can go into any establishment then he should be able to carry a gun into those same establishments?

He tried to fall back on the demonstrably false assumptions that if it wasn't a federal law then Civil Rights would be solved locally.

If I spell it out any more my brain will explode.

That's a great point Oteil, I don't think blacks nor most whites would want to serve KKK members. The political correctness of this argument kills me. I mean do we have a first amendment or not? Is private property really private property? And for the record, closet discrimination already happens daily and cannot be stopped, only if violence occurs Rand correctly said that should not be tolerated and punished by law. If a business were to openly discriminate every media outlet nearby would run story after story about how horrible the establishment was that no one would want to associate with such a place.

Mr. Burbridge is correct in his viewpoint. In watching the interview I saw Maddow and Paul having two completely different conversations. I respect Maddow and watch her every night, but all I saw from her was an attempt to get Paul to admit that he felt segregation was okay. Paul was acting the typical politician by evading and talking around the question. But what I got from him was a clear answer to her question. Paul does in fact believe that limited segregation is okay.

Now why does he think that? His argument was an odd one if you ask me, but I have to agree with him. Paul said it is not an issue of racism but one of rights of private businesses. The government has no right to dictate how a business conducts itself. He then claimed that if it is okay for the government to desegregate a restaurant because it a is a public place then second amendment right obviously extend to any individuals who go in there irregardless of the restaurant owners policy. Unfortunately that argument didn't really register with Maddow or most of her viewers at all. Paul should have taken a complete different approach to his argument in front of a liberal audience.

Any hard core conservative that you ever meet will swear up and down how awful the ACLU is. Though I believe adamantly in what they do, they have a terrible reputation with those who don't understand them. The ACLU will fiercely defend anyone who's individual rights have been trampled upon. This list of people they defend has a large number of bad people who do very bad things. The ACLU does not defend those bad people because they like the bad things they do, they defend those bad guys because their personal rights have been violated. The conservatives don't seem to understand that part of it though.

Paul is a proponent of the rights of private business. One of a business' most valuable right is to make stupid decisions, and that includes hanging a sign out front that says 'No Blacks.' I cant justify my own belief in what the ACLU does without also believing in Paul's argument.

Mr. Burbridge, you are a wise man.

Lee, I never said it would be better for private businesses to "re-institutionalize" racism. Your fear that every single business would automatically "revert to being racist" is disproved by the fact that you have a black President. The numbers aren't what they used to be. And again, I would rather my children not support a racist business than "feel" like they can go anywhere. My kids are gonna know damn well that there are certain places they can't go because of the color of their skin, like a Klan rally. The reality is that both whites and blacks have places they can't go today and be safe because of the color of their skin. I don't want my kids being that naive. I would tell them the same thing I'm gonna have to tell them anyway, "Those people are filled with hate, you don't want to eat there anyway."

If you think I don't have to put up with racism because I'm "successful" that you need to go and talk to Skip Gates. I have experienced more racism in television, movies and music business than you realize. I am 45 man. It was a covert racism that I experienced in Washington DC and I prefer mine out in the open.

Saying that my support for big gov't staying out of our private businesses is as damaging as the diehard klansman is intellectually irresponsible. Die hard klansmen of yesterday had the full weight of a racist executive, judicial, and legislative branch behind them. What does the modern day Klansman have to support him comparatively? We have limited institutionalized racism to the point of electing Obama. Plus, we (Blacks) can own guns now. The playing field is quite different. And Rand Paul is far from a Klansman.

Lastly, I am not "downplaying" any part of the Civil rights movement, I am merely disagreeing with part of it in principle. And only in the sense that it is a different scenario now. We Blacks have many more choices now than we used to. How long do you think a "whites only" business would last in a city like D.C or Atlanta? Let's get real. This is starting to feel more like a theological debate.

And Input Thought Output Project you sure have made a giant leap from a Libertarian viewpoint to a "separatist Ideology". Holy mackerel maybe your brain has already exploded. You said that "You'd change your tune pretty quick if you lived in an area where all private establishments had the right to not serve you." You forget than in the 21st century I have the choice to live in a different area. Why do you want your kids to have to swim with crackers that hate them? That's why they made the pool PRIVATE, cause Blacks can go to the PUBLIC beach now.

And neither of you answered the question about being forced to serve Klansman in your restaurant.

Shalom,

ob

@ Pruth> I am sorry if the use of that word offended you or anyone else. I used it because Otiel had used it to define Woolworth>"Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere.".

When I lived in Pcola, I witnessed discriminatory practices regularly. The saddest part is, they are so common that they have remained normal to the victims of them.

Ironically, I witnessed one event at a restaurant called "The Cracker Barrel".

Hey Otiel, Thanks for the feedback. Although the truth of the closeted discriminations are what you have lived and I have only witnessed, I am seeing that the normalization of racial bigotry, while it might be self regulating from a business point of view, has a detrimental effect on society.

Your insights as to how a black man must know how to travel in the south demonstrate that. That is a very real but a very fear filled way to move in the world. I think this nation can do better than that.

Every now and again I read the Letters from the Birmingham Jail. When my spirit needs a lift I read those words of hope. What I hear in those letters is that Dr. King was fed up with being told to just wait a little longer for equality and justice. The same crap that Gandhi was told.

These men lived and died for their principles. Respecting the lessons learned from their sacrifice is the least we can do for peaceful warriors.

Keep up the Good Fight!

Namaste

Oteil

In answer to the question of having to serve Klansmen...of course the answer is that you have to. BUT...if the little ladies who can "remember when" are still willing to eat there, you watch the Klansmen. However unlikely it is, if they conduct themselves with decorum and refrain from talking shop, you leave them be. If they act in the any way like we expect them to, or harass the ladies to ANY degree. You tell them they are banned because they don't know how to act like civilized people and they are disrupting you business. As a business owner, you must be able to guarantee that your customers will be safe. If any element comprimises that obligation, it must be removed. If the Klansmen refuse to leave, call the police and charge them with disturbing the peace - show the police what damage, if any, that they caused and sue them for it. How's that? Personally I would have a hard time not picking a fight with them. But again, if I did - you would be obligated to throw ME out. Fair's fair.

Also...though you haven't asked about it. The comparison of blacks to gun in businesses is a weak one. It would be legal in a place with open-carry laws. Everywhere else its is illegal to openly display firearms. The inverse is an interesting proposition....an establishment where it is legal to have guns in a state that doesn't have open-carry laws. Would that be legal? <shrug>

Its a priviledge to have this discussion with you.

Oteil, You're to young to remember the way it was. I was there. Civil Rights laws were and are needed. Rachel made Rand Paul say what he was thinking,now everyone knows who he is. Would you be where you are today?

To Don, screw that bro! I would refuse to serve a Klansman or allow someone to open carry in my restaurant. That doesn't work for me.

I have to say though, instructive as it is, this is a perfect example of politically motivated jockeying over a moot point. Blacks did not have choice, votes or guns back then. Of course it was necessary to have the lunch counters of public institutions in the south back then integrated. All these blacks had to come downtown to work but couldn't use the bathroom. We're talking about a Libertarian philosophical question. Is Rand Paul a racist because of his political philosophy? Is his philosophy inherently racist? I think the answer to both questions is no. After all this I really hope I'm not wrong!

And Nassau3, my dad was at Martin Luther King's march on Washington. My older brother Kofi remembers the Marshal Law in D.C. after King got killed. All I heard growing up was how racist America was. My dad's blade is sharper than Rev. Wright's let me assure you. I'm sure they'll be horrified at all this.

Anyway, I think I'm done here. I'm starting to repeat myself.

By the way for all those who think its not really me, I'm 45 born at George Washington hospital in Wash. D.C. on 8/24/64. I went to High school at Sidwell Friends where Obama's kids go. I guess I'll need to produce my birth certificate next huh???

Oteil,

Your analysis is well reasoned. There is a habit in our country that if you disagree with the statist agenda that somehow makes you a racist, homophobe, or Neanderthal. Rand Paul is none of those things, just a guy standing up for private property rights.

The Civil Rights Act served an important purpose in 1964, but today those issues are socially settled. Almost all business owners would not put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by denying service to a person of color or by not hiring the best candidate because they were black. Maybe this would happen in a few rural towns in the deep south, but you know what those towns are poorer because of it. The problem with the left is that they do not understand how the free market works. Thank you for your input.

Here's a question I pose to all anarchists:

Do you value property rights over human rights?

Jacobine...no, those questions are not settled. One of the unintended social consequence of Brown v. Board of Education was "white flight" from the cities to suburban communities so they would Not need to send their kids to school with black kids. As factories closed because of maufacturing jobs being sent overseas, the economy was devastated in the innercities. And Urban came to mean Black. If you don't see a problem with that. That's a problem.

If you say you aren't a bigot, but don't have a problem with people being discriminated against (for being black, gay, Muslim, whatever), you are still a bigot. The people who said they didn't hate the Jews and even thought the Nazis were wrong to exterminate them, but who did nothing to stop it...they were silent collaborators. Americans died by the thousands to make that point.

There is another word for the free market. Caveat Emptor. The free market is about money, and money is antithetical to morality. Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into Heaven. You serve God or you serve Money, you can't do both. Jesus was a liberal. Mob rule with torches would be a satisfactory solution to crooked dealers. BP Oil for example. "But wait," you say "that would be against the Law." To which I say, ain't you glad we got Laws?

RachelVs: No but we view property rights as the best tool to empower human rights. BTW it's not arnarchists, it's minimalists.

Many seem to miss that point. He thinks Blacks are possessions. He made that point clearly.

You're being dishonest. He was talking about government management of private businesses.

Think about airlines (and no, I'm not comparing black people to airplanes). The government is in charge of security. Airlines aren't allowed to make their own rules, and maybe allow passengers to carry guns -- maybe you'll remember Ron Paul made that point in one of the debates.

Rand made the slippery slope argument that if you give the government precedence to decide what a business can and can't do, soon they'll be controlling everything.

Certainly you could understand that if you were against granting Bush increased executive powers, because you thought it could end up in a dictatorship.

Being principled means you have to defend some pretty weird things, you know? Go poll how many American citizens want to legalize prostitution. See if it gets into double digits. So, this whole thing was to pigeon-hole Rand and make him seem like some kind of bigot. Couldn't be further from the truth.

MooseOfReason - And Rand Paul was being dishonest to equate laws which tell a private business that they can't discriminate with making the private business public. He said that it was on the basis of the business then being public that the owner couldn't discriminate against a customer's 2nd Amendment rights. That's a BS argument and I'm surprised Rachel didn't nail him on it.

The other thing she didn't nail him on was when he said that she was bringing up a false issue from 1964 that has no bearing on his running now. However, he was the one who said that the 10th out of the 10 Civil Rights laws which were passed is still a valid topic for discussion. In other words - current issue. Not that it's a settled issue. No. It is still up for discussion. Yup, non-segregated lunch counters are A-Okay with Dr. Paul as long as they're not receiving Federal funds.

Dr. Paul, building a bridge to the 1950s...

I wouldn't say he's a racist but his talk show circuit did hammer in the fact he holds a separatist ideology.

Separatist use convoluted reasoning to 'try' and distance themselves from racist but in fact they are very compatible views.

This isn't the matrix so don't make it more complicated then it it.

Here is the difference...

You choose to carry a gun... You don't choose to be black...

With the minor exception of religion (which some will debate), the Cival Rights Act was designed to protect you from discrimination based on things that you have no control over i.e. race, color, sex, and national origin.

So until we are packing heat coming out of the womb... I don't think Rand Paul has a leg to stand on in this debate...

He did equate Dining while black to dining while armed with a deadly weapon.

What troubled me is I dont think he sees that one is a choice(to carry a side arm, and the other is not a choice( to be a person of color).

Even if it is ignorance on Doctor Paul's part, it is no less racist.

hellkap,

Those would be great follow-up questions. However, given that Ms. Maddow is the rare journalist willing to ask tough questions, I doubt they'll get asked or if they are, in a way that allows Mr. Rand to avoid answering.

Maybe he thinks most blacks carry guns - they seem inextricably linked in his mind ...

Saying that you will not provide equal service to a peaceful paying patron due to some wacked-out deeply held discriminatory belief is not ANYTHING like refusing patrons who are carrying guns and therefore pose a safety issue ...

Owners of Private businesses have the right to ensure safety, but not racial homogeneity, in their places of business - what the %$@&* is wrong with this guy?

As someone who has actually had to spend a night sleeping in my car with 3 interracial kids because an ignorant owner of the only motel in town looks you right in the eye and says "no vacancy" despite a large red "vacancy" sign flashing in the window ... and then proceeds to give rooms to other travelers right in front of you ... I can assure Rand Paul that these are not simply intellectual debates!

I can understand wanting "less government interference" in the daily lives of citizens ... but the Civil Rights Act is an altruistic universal good that serves everyone. One day, one day soon (within the next 20 years), whites will actually be the minority in this country ... I wonder how the rednecks of the Tea Party will feel about these "imposed" rights when the shoe is on the other foot ...

And notice how Rand says repeatedly that he is in favour of more than 90% of the Civil Rights Act. It seems like a lot of people posting on here really really wish that Rand Paul is a racist. I'm sorry that he will disappoint you.

He's making a principled argument about what rights do business owners have. He's defending the rights of business owners to determine who is or is not allowed on their property. Yes, this could mean a white racist could exclude blacks. But this also means that: A lesbian bar could exclude men, a black restaurant could exclude whites (or maybe just Klansmen), golf clubs could enforce dress codes, etc. Does this mean that Rand endorses all of these hypothetical decisions? Hell no.

The ACLU stands up for the rights of racists all the time... They feel neo-nazis should have the right to have public parades. And yet, is anyone on here willing to call the ACLU a racist organization? Rand Paul makes proper reference to the 1st amendment, and what it means to have free speech in a society. I think Maddow was, like many of you, just hoping, wishing, and hoping that Rand would just say, "Yes, I'm a racist." The issues she was discussing were much more complicated than she thought.

That was not a fair question. Rand put it in terms of the government having the precedent to manage private businesses.

The reaction here seems to be largely similar to conservatives reacting to an ACLU case: "Are they really defending THAT!?"

Yes, if you're going to have principles, you have to uphold them. Actually, the ACLU even defended the right of neo-nazis to have a parade. Would you have a problem with the ACLU over that? Sure, you believe in free speech, but not for those people.

Rachel was trying to get a soundbite, and should have talked about actual, relevant issues. The Civil Rights Act will not be repealed, and no one is trying.

What was unfair about the question? It was fair game since Rand started the dialogue in the NPR interview. Rand could have given a straight answer with the libertarian mantra, "Government has NO authority over private business practice." and they could have both moved on. It seems Rand is disingenuous if he can't definitvely expound his beliefs.

To Moose

Dr. Paul’s answer, or lack of an answer, is relevant to the way he would legislate if his campaign is successful. It gives and insight into the way the man would lead, and his ability to make just decisions. Rachel stated that she wanted to move on to other topics, but he would not state exactly where he stood. He could have done as Rudy said, and used the “libertarian mantra, "Government has NO authority over private business practice."…and moved on, but he didn’t.

Rachel has no need to try to get sound-bites out of people. That kind of behavior is more suited for lesser journalists (and politicians) who seek to sensationalize and not present the big picture. I watch a lot of news on all of the networks and find Rachel to be one of the fairest and most knowledgeable interviewers on the air. She does good research, treats guest respectfully, and follows up with more research afterwards. If she says something wrong or left out an aspect of a story, she admits it and makes it right. Her knowledge, interviewing style, and reporting goes far above the sound-bite journalism that you claim is being used here.

I thought he made a fool out of himself. He said a private business owner has the right to discriminate against their customers specifically on race and sexual orientation. And to interfere with that would be a violation of that business owner's freedom of speech? I guess he's also against government food safety requirements and OSHA regulations at the workplace. And taking it to the next level, child labor laws are also an example of government overreach. He's an absolutist idealogue on the flip side of Marx and Lenin.

So the biggest deal for you, apparently, in the Civil Rights Act was the right of blacks to eat at racist lunch counters? Who would want to eat at a racist lunch counter anyways? Rand clearly stated that 9/10's of the bill was sound and just. But apparently, people here, and Rachel Maddow, won't rest until every racist @!$%# has to, by force of law, serve a sandwich to a black person.

Reefpirate

And why are you so dedicated on defending them?

The issue can be parsed as a matter of individual liberty for all concerned and libertarians can come down against bigoted business owners. To maintain constitutional legitimacy, the government must defend the reserved rights of individuals. In some cases competing rights are involved like we encounter with this issue.

In this case the question is whether private business owners have a superior right to refuse business to certain races of people or people who are not heterosexual; or do people of color and non-heteros have a superior right? That's an easy answer, there is no compelling state interest to defend the rights of business owners to be bigots while there's an enormous responsibility for the government to defend the rights of people against such bigotry.

This was a major hole in Barry Goldwater's argument in his seminal book, "Conscience of a Conservative" that is the primary source citation by modern-day conservatives making such arguments. Sen. Goldwater failed to consider the rights of those discriminated against and weigh whose rights were superior and worthy of protecting and many conservatives keep right on making that very same mistake.

A proper application of natural law requires a just government to defend the rights of the people of color and non-heterosexuals. That principle is plainly demanded in the Declaration of Independence along with several other declaration of rights by the colonies when they declared our association with King George III and Great Britain voided and therefore null. The problem with conservatives isn't a fealty to natural law but instead their mutated understanding of it and the enlightenment ideals from where it was developed by instead supporting the modern-day conservative movement's political objectives at the expense of their fellow Americans' freedoms and constitutional principle.

He would have danced around that pointed question just as he did with every other pointed question Rachel asked...

There's plenty of time to dig into these deeper issues. Ms. Maddow was outstanding at handing Mr. Rand a shovel while he dug a hole he might not be able to dig himself out of given the wide range of negative ramifications of his position. Mr. Rand provided his opponent in the general election a whole host of end-game scenarios to nail him with in campaign attack ads, not merely equal access.

Sorry, rachel totally exposed Rand for the absolutist idealogue that he is. He came off disingenous by prevaricating in his answers. Had he shown integrity and been direct, they could have moved on to the next question. The man came off as a "typical" politician.

Why is it a hatchet job to ask a politician a question on an important constitutional issue and not allow said politician to weasel their way out of directly answering the question? Especially given the enormity of this constitutional principle as Mr. Rand conflated it in terms of making the outrageously false claim that when government regulates businesses to protect consumers, private businesses are turned into public ones.

Mr. Rand was the one avoiding answering an extremely important question, does he support business owners' rights at the expense of some consumers who happen to not be white or hetereosexual? He appears to not be aware of the reality that a libertarian argument can be made, and has been successfully for that matter, that a consumer's right to access is far more important than a particular business owners right to discriminate against some customers based merely on their race or sexual identification.

This issue has nothing to do with your position on drug laws.

Agreed, I love Rachel's show but this interview really came off like a hatchet job. It's like she spent the whole interview trying to get a sound byte of him saying he "supports racism" when I think he just supports freedom and if people choose to be racist then that's their right. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I was merely using my position on drug laws to illustrate the point that if you're going to "walk-the-walk" as a Libertarian politician you will unfortunately find yourself defending some extremely unpopular positions.

Nobody gets elected by stating they are opposed to "The War on Drugs" or by defending the right of business owners to behave in a bigoted manner. It's much easier to simply pander to the vast majority of the electorate and agree that drug-users should be locked up and having the federal government insert itself into everyone's private life is a great idea.

I agree with Michael Heath - I don't think Rand Paul even is aware of the intricacies of the Libertarian philosophy ... I think he has gotten this far on his father's good name and by pandering to the lowest common denominator ... the Tea Party Racists (not that all tea partiers are racist). He is simply spouting what he thinks people in his "niche" want to hear ...

He has also gotten this far by basing his political positions on a very narrow (and narrow-minded) segment of society. This loyal (and seemingly fanatical) following is not large enough in number to win the final election, even though it was large enough to win him a primary election victory. He is going to have to temper his positions and appeal to a larger audience if he hopes to actually serve his state's diverse interests. Right now he is making a rooky mistake and is swept-up in the furvor. Inspiring confidence in a large constituency wins elections - not serving a limited number of like-minded people.

So asking for a simple yes or no is a hatchet job. Yeah, I get Libertarianism...which also defends a womens right to choose in addition to liberalization of drug laws. Look, if you ask someone a yes or no question, and they answer...repeatedly...with "Well the interesting thing about that is...," does that inspire confidence in you? The question is would he billing to defend another person's right to discriminate. Could YOU pick a clear answer out of all that?

Rand did a "hatchet job" on himself by meandering around the question (especially his first lengthy tangential response re: Boston), thus making it the sole focus of the interview. As this is a relevant issue—he wants to "take back our country" and will vote accordingly—it is important to bring clarity to his position, and Rachel really had no option but to press him. The truth is, he doesn't believe in government interference in private enterprise. It's hugely controversial and unpopular, but it is what it is. I agree with another post, "he's in over his head," tied to the wrong donkey—this country isn't going back. Unfortunately, the other donkey is the religious right.

So when did Rand say he would repeal the Civil Rights Act? When did he say that this was a major piece of legislation he was intending on enacting? You say he dodged the question, and perhaps he didn't say "Yes." But he basically gave you his answer, which was that while he may find the practice abhorrent, he would defend someone's right to run their business the way they choose.

darn thats can't smoke inside

Mr. Rand would probably fail to consider the rights of others beyond owners were even involved just like he failed when he promoted the rights for business owners even if it violated the far superior rights of some consumers.

In the case of smoking the rights of employees to not be exposed to a Class A carcinogen is far superior to the rights of owners and customers to risk their health; especially since economists also discovered that there is no labor liquidity in the hospitality market for waitstaff for a given wage. Employees' rights became the prevailing right in the early 1990s when science discovered how dangerous second-hand smoke was; a finding that by the early 2000s had become peer-accepted and significant.