Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Mark O
Austin, TX
Recent Activity
-
Mark commented on the article |ASE is a private organization...
-
Mark commented on the article |
"But he would not say that all people should have access to all institutions, businesses, schools, public or private if they are open to the public."
False. Schools and other publicly-funded institutions would be prohibited from discriminating on race. Rand was only talking about interference in private businesses.
"Many businesses are privately owned, yet if they are there to service the public, then they cannot discriminate; that just makes sense;"
I appreciate your sentiment, but do you have the right to refuse someone on your property?
The right to free association is there in the First Amendment... The compliance costs associated with the Civil Rights Act constitute an unconstitutional Taking (prohibited by Fourth Amendment)... and let's not forget the 10th Amendment, prohibiting the Federal Government from exercising powers not expressly granted to it... in this case the Gov is saying they have the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the law in question concerns businesses which do not even engage in interstate commerce. So the Fed. Gov. has no right to interfere with those businesses in the first place.
-
Mark commented on the article |
Madison's point was that government is a tool of force, and thus it must be limited and controlled. Before 1938, when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Carolene Products Company that the government could control interstate commerce and not just regulate it, and in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights act, the government was assumed to be LIMITED to the powers assigned through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. After those cases, the government power was (virtually) unlimited. Bravo to Rand Paul for standing up for limited government and not just weaseling out of a difficult question like so many politicians these days.
-
Mark commented on the article |
"Clearly if mankind was benevolent and could operate without laws, rules, and consequences, the Rand Paul view about the Civil Rights Act would not be an issue; but this is not the case."
Contrast with:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist #51
-
Mark commented on the article |
For an analysis of how Jim Crow laws were against the interest of businesses which otherwise would have integrated to save money, see:
-
Mark commented on the article |
It's just one section of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately that section has opened the floodgates of government meddling in the practices of private businesses. Freedom of association means you can choose who you wish to do business with. Today you can't open a women-only business, nor can you open a gay-only business if you were so inclined. There are a million reasons, some good and some bad, for a business to want to discriminate.
Let's look at the example of a racist business owner. He would have two choices:
1) Be openly racist and see how many people buy his products or services
2) Be a "closet" racist and get found out eventually. Same result.
Meanwhile there would be businesses with a "fair trade" style brand ensuring their practices are as discrimination-free as their customers demand.
Jim Crow was the law in the South: Many businesses that WANTED to integrate were forbidden from doing so. By removing the law without imposing such strict standards on businesses, the integration may have happened more slowly but with less opposition by racist whites in the South. Today you look at American cities like Atlanta and they are incredibly segregated. Would that be the case if the integration took place more "organically"? We'll never know, and of course it's just an academic curiosity that has no place in a Senate race in 2010. Rand Paul never made an issue out of the civil rights act, the liberal media did.
-
Mark commented on the article |
Please reconcile these two statements:
"Laisez-faire capitalism and the "invisible hand of the (unregulated) free market" has never ended racism, sexism and discrimination again handicapped people. It never has and never will."
"Discrimination is wrong and it is bad for business and profits."
-
Mark commented on the article |What are you getting at, Harold? You're mixing up morality with politics. Big mistake.
-
Mark commented on the article |
A universal right, and thus a universal responsibility. One that appears to be rather burdensome for Euro area countries these days.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, no such thing as free health care, and thus there is no right to health care, only a certain level of health care as decided by the selfish interests of politicians.
-
Mark commented on the article |
Total media pile-on. Did you watch the news shows on Sunday? No one even bothered to make the point that this is NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. The worst offender was Sam Donaldson: "Dr. Paul thinks we should reopen the debate." WTF?
