American libertarians, including Barry Goldwater back in the day, have opposed racial discrimination but been wary of using the federal government to make discrimination by private employers against "protected classes" illegal, as Reason' hit & run blog notes.
Which brings us to the current Rand Paul brouhaha. This erupted after the Kentucky GOP Senate primary winner, a favorite of Tea Party patriots, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (when asked) that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring discrimination in hiring by private employers. Predictably, Paul was branded a "racist" and has come under enormous political fire by the mainstream media.
But libertarians' opposition to the Civil Rights Act no more makes them "racists" than their opposition to outlawing anti-gay hiring discrimination in the private sector makes them homophobes (as Nigel Ashford addressed here back in 1999).
Whether you agree or not, it's a principled view based on assumptions about, and in defense of, individual liberty. But as a society we've become unable to discuss and debate serious positions regarding political philosophy, and instead have only demagoguery and partisan grandstanding.
What I find interesting is the fact that the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity into classes protected from employment discrimination, is going nowhere fast (as Dale Carpenter makes clear), despite two years of a liberal Democratic president with sweeping majorities in both houses of Congress.
But in this case, it's not because Democrats are closet libertarians; they just don't see the advantage in using political capital on our behalf. And their inaction seems perfectly fine with the liberal grandees of the mainstream media, given their silence on the issue. For them, at least, some forms of private-sector discrimination are more tolerable than others. And that is not a principled position; it's just a political calculation.
30 Comments for “The Nature of Liberty Is Worth Debating”
posted by Jimmy on
“And that is not a principled position; it’s just a political calculation.”
In Washington DC, it’s a political calculation when the stop lights change from red to green. So what? If you’re looking for something that is not political in every way, shape, and form, the seat of government is the last place I’d look.
Seems to me, as organizations go, the federal government has as much opportunity to enforce its code of conduct as, say, AT&T, as it pertains to equal opportunity in hiring. By the same token, if someone is apt to create a hostile work environment by espousing, in a public way, radical bigotry (Katz), in violation of employer’s code of conduct which is presumed to be agreed to when the job was taken, then no one should be surprised when the ultimate consequences befall the transgressor.
posted by Bob on
> But libertarians’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act no more makes them “racists” than …
On the other hand, a man who would ban abortions and recreational drugs is no libertarian. So we’re back to racism, since he picks and chooses which libertarian positions to take.
posted by avee on
Libertarians have always disgreed about abortion; if you believe life begins at conception, it can be a libertarian view to protect that life.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t really care, but there’s a difference between a racist and a bigot.
Not voting for the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds: racist, but not bigoted.
The problem with libertarian approaches is that they trip over pragmatic realities in their zest for ideological purity. One can argue that the Civil Rights Act did more harm than good, and I’m sure we could have done better. You don’t just say no to something like that and expect to remain standing. You have to show that what you believe would actually work.
posted by CJ on
It also ignores history, and how governments have historically discriminated against what are now ‘protected classes’. Rand’s idea of a pure society where no one discriminates, or where the negative effects of discrimination are equally distributed across racial, gender (etc) lines, ignores how centuries of affirmative action for straight white Xian men still concentrates power into those hands today.
posted by Tom on
Rand’s view on the Civil Rights Act is, it seems to me, analogous to Rand’s view on same-sex marriage.
Rand is on record opposing same-sex marriage in Kentucky.
His view is that government licensing of marriage is an unneccesary extension of government power; consistent with the Libertarian view, Paul wants to âprivatize marriageâ altogether, including marriage for straight couples. In his view, government licensing of same-sex marriage is an unwarranted expansion of government power into the private sphere — a wrong compounding an existing wrong — and should not be permitted.
That’s fine as far as it goes, and it is, in the realm of political theory, a principled stand consistent with Libertarian principles.
But it ignores the reality that straight couples can marry in Kentucky and same-sex couples cannot marry in Kentucky. Unless either (a) the marriage laws in Kentucky change to permit same-sex marriage on the same basis as straight marriage, or (b) marriage is “privatized” in Kentucky and Kentucky ceases to license marriages at all, that inequity will continue.
So however principled and consistent, the practical effect of Rand’s position to perpetuate “straight-only” marriage in Kentucky until the day when straight couples in Kentucky elect to “privatize marriage”, a day that is far distant at best.
So it was, it seems to me, with the Civil Rights Act.
Barry Goldwater, a Republican with a strong Libetarian streak, voted against the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds.
Goldwater was no racist, nor did he favor segregation. In areas where he believed that the federal government had the power to act — the military, for example — Goldwater was a strong proponent of integration and equal treatment of races.
But the effect of Goldwater’s vote, principled as it was, would have been to continue segregation in areas where he believed that the federal govenment did not have the power to intervene — state segregation laws and the private arena. If Goldwater views on the Civil Rights Act had prevailed, we would likely still have segregated water fountains, bathrooms, restaurants and other public accommodations today in regions of the country.
Bill Buckley noted, reflecting back on the Civil Rights Act, that “federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation”.
Perhaps so. Perhaps not. On the one hand, the Civil Rights Act, expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause and eroding states rights, changed our Constitutional landscape, and has, I think, led to increased intrusion of government power into the private sphere. On the other hand, the Civil Rights Act corrected an injustice that would otherwise have taken decades to correct, an injustice, grounded as it was in unequal treatment of citizens, that was eating away at the social contract upon which our country was founded.
The issues surrounding the Civil Rights Act — states rights and the limits of government power — seem to me to be in play in today’s world with respect to same-sex marriage, and in play in a similar, if not identical, way.
The Libertarian Party platform takes this position on same-sex marriage:
“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.”
The platform is admirable. I agree with every word. I believe in “privatized marriage”. I don’t think that the government should license and regulate marriage.
But I also realize that what is admirable in theory falls short in reality. It is well and good for me to want to get the government out of marriage, where it has no business, but I also have to recognize that the government is up to its ears in marriage — regulating marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, adoption, differntial taxation and a host of other artifacts surrounding government intrusion into marriage — and recognize that straight couples are not going to allows marriage to be privatized any time in the forseeable future.
Within that reality, so long as the government is exercising the authority to “define, license or restrict personal relationships”, I am working to ensure that the government defines and marriage on an equal footing for all citizens.
I think that Rand’s position on same-sex marriage is wrongheaded.
Unless and until the Libertarian Party, and politicians like Rand who espouse the Libertarian philosophy, push hard to bring life and substance to the idea that “government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships” — that is to say make privatization of marriage a critical priority for the party — the practical effect of the Libertarian position is to allow marriage inequality to continue as the law of the land, indefinitely. In that respect, the Libertarian Party’s position, and Rand’s, is similar to the argument over the Civil Rights Act.
In fact, I think that the Libertarian Party position, encapsulated in Rand’s view that the government should not license same-sex marriage because marriage should be privatized, while keeping marriage available to straight couples despite the obvious fact that privatizing marriage is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes, is to knowingly perpetuate unequal treatment under the law.
I believe that Barry Goldwater knew that his vote on the Civil Rights Act, as Bill Buckley later noted, was a vote to continue the injustice of segregation. Goldwater voted as he did because he believed that the constitutional principles involved — states rights and government intrusion into the private arena — were more dangerous than continued segregation.
I believe that Goldwater was wrong in that judgment. Similarly, I believe that Rand Paul is wrong in his stand on same-sex marriage.
posted by Jorge on
Very well said, Tom. And you too as well, CJ.
There is simply too much progressive scholarship and theory on the effects of institutional racism (etc.), and it is too credible and accepted among the general public, for anyone to ignore. I don’t mind someone disagreeing, but I consider a strong and public rebuttal mandatory as part of any disagreement. In my view, principle alone doesn’t cut it.
posted by Jimmy on
Rand’s scenario works ok AFTER you have weeded out the weak. The question is……how do you that.?
Nihilisim has and end-game, and the cheeleaders are, of course, blond.
posted by Debrah on
“Nihilisim has and end-game, and the cheeleaders are, of course, blond.”
******************************************
Huh?
Translation, please.
What’s going on with you today, Jimmy?
posted by Jimmy on
“What’s going on with you today, Jimmy?”
Oh, it’s a most bucolic day here on my street.
Actually, I’m not going to translate. I’m not interested in giving that little Russian psychopath any more of my wonderful, shiny day.
posted by bls on
Paul ducked the “legitimate debate” on ABC-TV with Stephanopoulis, I note. G.S. asked Paul point-blank, was it OK to discriminate if you’re a landlord – and Rand nobly offered that he “wouldn’t vote to repeal the Fair Housing Act.” The door was wide open for him to “debate” the question – and he ducked completely. He could have actually said, in fact, that it was a point worth debating – but he didn’t.
So, please. It looks to me that when libertarians run for public office, they’re just like everybody else: they lose all “principle” in order to get elected.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Ðй, Ðжимми, поÑÐµÐ¼Ñ Ñебе оÑкоÑбиÑÑ Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ?! — Ð²ÐµÐ´Ñ Ñ ÑÐµÐ±Ñ Ð½Ð¸ в Ñем не повÑедил и не пÑидÑмал повÑедиÑÑ! Рна Ñамом деле, Ñ Ñам не ÑÑÑÑкий, пÑоÑÑо Ñ Ð½ÐµÐ¿Ð»Ð¾Ñ Ð¾ Ð²Ð»Ð°Ð´ÐµÑ ÑзÑком.
–ТÑобеÑÑ, Ñей Ð´ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¾ÐºÐ°Ð·Ð°Ð»ÑÑ Ð¾ÑÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¿ÐµÑалÑно из-за Ðжимми!! 🙁
P.S. Since I’m good at languages, I’ll translate for Jimmy: He was calling Ayn Rand a crypto-Nazi, after what was evidently a very quick and careless skim of the thread!
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way, since both Google Translate and Babelfish tend to do atrocious jobs with Russian-English translation, here’s what I said to Jimmy (which phoneticizes as “Dzhimmi” in Russian):
Here’s the English output from Babelfish:
And here’s Google’s attempt:
I will note that Babelfish completely bungled the very simple phrase ya sam ne russkiy (literally, “I self not Russian”) by leaving out the negative particle ne and thus turning it into a positive statement. On the other hand, I think Google did a worse job than Babelfish with the “have neither harmed (you) nor even thought of harming” part. So, like I said, they are both rather sucktastic.
posted by Jimmy on
‘He was calling Ayn Rand a crypto-Nazi….”
Yep.
Everything after that, Throbert, is just gilding the lilly.
posted by Zombie Ayn Rand on
СлÑÑай, гомик ÑÑ — зовеÑÑ Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ “кÑипÑо-наÑиÑÑ” еÑе Ñаз, и Ñ ÑÐµÐ±Ñ Ð¿Ð¸Ð·Ð´Ð°Ð½ÑÑÑ Ð² моÑÐ´Ñ Ñак, ÑÑоб ÑÑ Ð±ÑдÑо Ð¾Ñ Ð¼ÐµÐ»ÐµÐ»!
P.S. I swear by my undead-life and my love of it that Bill Buckley totally stole that line from me!
P.P.S. Braaiiinnnss… Nom-nom-nom!
posted by Debrah on
OK, Throbert.
You can cut the Sunday seance now.
Ayn Rand’s Revenge
Say it’s not true!
posted by BobN on
Tom,
Neither Paul nor the Libertarian Party platform should be commended for a “principled” position when that position is utterly meaningless. Now, if either actually DID ANYTHING to dismantle marriage, that would another discussion.
It’s not “principled” to ignore reality.
posted by Tom on
It seems to me that the Libertarian stand on the evils of government regulation of marriage is a bit like Christians discoursing about the evils of divorce and remarriage.
The idea that remarriage after divorce is, in almost all cases, the moral equivalent of adultery is a Christian principle (an an important one, apparently, since it is stressed five times in different Gospels), and, it seems to me, Christians are taking a principled stand when they remind each other of that core teaching.
But the reality is something altogether different, given that Christians have about the same rate of divorce and remarriage as everyone else, Jesus or no Jesus. Christians should, I guess, talk about the evils of divorce and remarriage, but it is probably unrealistic to expect them to divorce their second/third wives in order to bring their lives into line with the teaching they espouse. It seems to me that the best they can do with divorce and remarriage is to try to bring their own to a fuller appreciation of Christian principle, and encourage and support those who have fallen into the ditch on divorce and remarriage to try to live as close as they can to Christian teaching in other respects.
So it is, it seems to me, with Libertarians, when it comes to government regulation of marriage.
The Libertarians are right, it seems to me, to point out that government regulation of marriage has created, over the years, an unprecedented intrusion of government into the private realm.
Government subsidizes marriage in a myriad of ways that it did not even fifty years ago, when marriage was considered, for the most part, a private matter, and government regulation was confined, for the most part, to licensing marriage. As is always the case, it seems, when government starts subsidizing something, along with the subsidies has come an increased level of government control.
I think that the Libertarians are right to point this out, and to call for government to get out of marriage regulation.
But we all know that won’t happen in our lifetime.
As is the case with Christians and divorce/remarriage, Libertarians are as much a part of the problem of government intrusion into marriage as anyone else. Libertarians marry, rather than live according to their principles, rejecting government regulation of their own lives in this respect by refusing to enter into civil marriage, and most would be loath, in our current world, to bring their own lives into line with Libertarian principle by dissolving their existing civil marriages.
So where does that leave us, and where does it leave Libertarians?
It seems to me that:
(1) Most Libertarians are content, at this point, to let government regulation of marriage be a sleeping dog, despite its excesses, looking forward to the far-distant day when government regulation can be dismantled, and doing what they can to keep the principle alive.
(2) Most Libertarians, until that bright, sunny day arrives, focus on another Libertarian principle, that marriage ought to be available to straights and gays/lesbians on an equal footing, and work toward that goal.
I see nothing unprincipled in that dual position, although I recognize that it is, as it was put so well in “Master and Commander”, “the lesser of two weevils”.
However, Rand Paul’s currently stated position, which opposes same-sex marriage on the basis that to embrace same-sex marriage would add to the evils of government regulation of marriage, while completely ignoring the inequality that creates and will continue indefinitely, strikes me, as David Link put it in another thread, more “convenient” than “principled”, particularly in light of the hard political reality that any Republican candidate who embraced same-sex marriage in Kentucky this election cycle would have his ass handed to him on a platter.
The more I see of him, the less I think of Rand Paul.
posted by Jimmy on
“The more I see of him, the less I think of Rand Paul.”
Agreed.
I want to see a lot more of Jack Conway, Kentucky Att. Gen. He is, as they say at Churchill Downs, “Hot to trot!”
posted by Debrah on
“I want to see a lot more of Jack Conway, Kentucky Att. Gen. He is, as they say at Churchill Downs, ‘Hot to trot!’ “
*******************************************************
Yeah, but he’s married.
Oh, but that doesn’t count inside the fantasy of him somewhere (yes, maybe he goes both ways!) on the down-low.
Ugh.
Too bad he’s just average.
Very ordinary looking.
posted by Jimmy on
“Oh, but that doesn’t count inside the fantasy of him somewhere (yes, maybe he goes both ways!) on the down-low.”
What should count inside a fantasy, as they harm no one?
posted by Debrah on
No, they usually aren’t harmful at all, but that guy isn’t “dream worthy”.
However, you might find that your actual nightly dreams hold the key to your innermost carnal exploits and desires.
Most people dream multiple times a night; however, few of them are remembered when we awaken.
The ones dreamed in the pre-dawn hours just before rising are the most vivid and the easiest to conjure in the light of day.
Many people even have orgasms during their dreams!
LOL!!!
posted by Jimmy on
“Many people even have orgasms during their dreams!”
The actual number, the world may never know, but I’ll wager that a larger portion of that number are, only just, pubescent boys.
I was having a recurring dream about the house I lived in as a child, and, apparently, dreaming about past homes has something to do with the physical body. As I have been doing a great deal of landscaping this spring, I would certainly like to have younger knees and ankles.
posted by Debrah on
“……apparently, dreaming about past homes has something to do with the physical body.”
*********************************
I hadn’t heard that before; however it dovetails appropriately with the idea that our basic personalities never change to any significant degree from early childhood and are formed in the first 4 years of life.
I tend to agree with that analysis.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
About the knees and ankles…….
…….many career dancers and athletes experience such trouble earlier than others.
Moderate exercise throughout life helps strengthen them; however, it’s often hereditary.
I know people in their twenties who already have issues with their knees and ankles.
You need to eat lots and lots of yogurt and kale!
posted by BobN on
It seems to me that the Libertarian stand on the evils of government regulation of marriage is a bit like Christians discoursing about the evils of divorce and remarriage.
I have yet to hear a Christian suggest that the solution to the “problems” of divorce and remarriage is to dismantle marriage.
[Mind you, there was a time, early in Christianity’s history, when the goal of some was complete abstinence from sex of any kind. But then the marketers and demographers took the upper hand. Demise averted, but Christianity still struggles with a deep streak of asceticism it doesn’t know what to do with.]
posted by Tom on
I should have been clearer about the analogy. Just as most Christians have learned to tolerate the evil of divorce and remarriage among Christians, discouraging the sin while encouraging divorced and remarried Christians to live according to Christian principles in other areas of their lives, so have most Libertarians learned to live with the fact that government regulation of marriage is going to remain with us for the foreseeable future, and have elected to encourage government-regulated marriage to be available to straights and gays/lesbians on an equal footing.
posted by BobN on
most Libertarians …. gays/lesbians on an equal footing
Must be that “silent majority” Nixon used to go on and on about.
posted by Tom on
Yeah, the 2.04% majority that Libertarians enjoyed in recent elections.
posted by BobN on
Sorry to be confusing. I didn’t mean they were the same “silent majority”. Obviously, there are few Libertarians.
What I meant was that the majority of Libertarians — if the majority is in favor of gay people being on equal footing — is awfully quiet about it.