Accidental Blogger

Rand Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul beat the "mainstream" Republican candidate in last Tuesday's surreal election evening. The junior Paul seems to have emerged as the favorite of both the libertarian wing of the GOP as well as the conservative "stick a finger in your eye" Tea Partiers.

I watched the following exchange between Paul and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow with some fascination last evening.  Maddow questioned Paul about his apparent rejection of the US Civil Rights Act. I don't think Paul is a racist. He was vehement about not having one racist fiber in his being and it may well be true. Also, he pointed out that he himself would not patronize a private establishment that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. I take him at his word. But I also think that he is foolishly arguing for philosophical and constitutional purity here without realizing how that provides a convenient cover for true racists who would like to hide behind First (and Second) Amendment arguments to repudiate the civil rights of others.

I think it is time that philosophers and lawyers came out and debated in public on ethical and not lawyerly grounds, that property rights, the right to carry guns or to shout foul slogans in public ought not to be morally equivalent in our collective judgment and conscience as the respect for and guarantee of an individual's civil rights as a human being.

Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul believes that the federal government blurred the lines between public and private property when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.

Paul explained his views on "The Rachel Maddow Show" Wednesday, just one day after wholloping his opponent in Kentucky's Republican primary.

Maddow focused on the Tea Party-backed candidate's civil rights stance after he publicly criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Paul told Maddow that he agrees with most parts of the Civil Rights Act, except for one (Title II), that made it a crime for private businesses to discriminate against customers on the basis of race. Paul explained that had he been in office during debate of bill, he would have tried to change the legislation. He said that it stifled first amendment rights:

Maddow: Do you think that a private business has a right to say that 'We don't serve black people?'

Paul:I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But do discriminate.

But I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent. Should we limit racists from speaking. I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires is that
we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it…

Paul argued that Maddow's questions weren't practical, but were instead abstract. She asked Paul to tell that to protesters who were beaten in their struggle for equal rights:

Maddow:… Howabout desegregating lunch counters?
Paul: Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other.' Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion…

More on why Rand Paul's obstinate position on the Civil Rights Act is flawed – here and here.