Hello, and about that Rand Paul guy…

So my friend Lino says to me last night, have you read my new political blog?  So I go to his site and within half an hour he asks me to join and start contributing to his political commentary.  He thought that I could add some scholarly content to the site.  This is interesting giving my lack of a formal education.

Now I need to lay some ground rules about myself.  I have a strong conservative political base with some libertarian social thought.  However I don’t necessarily support his given views on this sites many viewpoints and will likely differ in method and writing.

So back to the article, my girlfriend apparently read this blog before even I did and she being of the trusting liberal type said, “I hope you don’t share the Rand Paul attitude that says the US government didn’t have the ‘right’ to pass the anti-segregationist act.”  I started to say something, but she said we would talk about it later.  So here I am talking about it here.

First off for those not in the know Rand Paul is running for the Senate in the United States.  He has won the Republican nomination for his seat against the parties chosen man, and did so by riding partly on the wave of populist anger that is the so called Tea Party Movement.  A fairly disparate group of angry people upset that the government seems to be out of touch with the ‘peoples’ viewpoint.

Rand Paul after his victory in the Republican primary went on Chris Mathews Hardball television program.  Chris Mathews is a liberal political commentator and you would think that Rand Paul would have been a bit more careful, but being what we could call possibly ‘an honest politician’ he gave an honest answer.  And like anyone who does that he had to be immediately pounced upon and attacked for daring to open a debate on a ‘closed’ issue.

Now many here are probably wondering what it is this all about.  What is the closed issue?  In the Civil Rights Act the specific amendment is that people could no longer choose to not serve certain i.e. black, customers.  That stores and bars and other public establishments could not refuse customers based on race, color or other ethnicity.

Now Rand Paul and others who consider themselves Libertarians believe that every individual should receive the maximum Liberty in thought and action and that the state should place as little restrictions on that as they can.  That any restriction on choice is to be resisted at all costs.  That you as an individual have the right to refuse customers that you don’t like for whatever prejudices you might have.

They believe this because, they believe in equality and that they as a customer have the complete right not to shop at your store.  That any store owner foolish enough to refuse customers will quickly go out of business as the only thing the store owner should be concerned about is the color of the money.

The problem that Libertarians forget is the all pervasiveness of the ‘Jim Crow’ segregationist state.  That any store that did try to open based on an equal customer policy was subjected to official and unofficial harassment, by the authorities at the state and municipal level.  That there were organizations like the Klu Klux Klan that were dedicated to maintaining the status quo and were not above engaging in what we now would consider terrorist activities to do so.  That the US Federal government felt after a long and hard debate had no other choice but implement the Civil Rights Act.  They sought through social policy and laws to create a level playing field and to break the back of the policies at state level that created and maintained the racist state.

Now it has been over 40 years since these laws were passed and there are even now still small and occasional outbreaks of racism.  But the debate is not closed as some would have it.  There are people who question such a massive intrusion into there personal liberties and they are right to question it.  And the government does not get to just stand there and say, “Were in charge.  Live with it.”  They must work to justify there actions.

That’s why I believe in ‘Sunset Clauses’.  This is an infrequently used part of law that requires that a given piece of legislation must be continually renewed every few years.  That unless it is renewed, the legislation will expire and people will regain the freedoms they have sacrificed on a temporary basis.  That those who are in favor of the legislation must continually reopen the debate and justify its existence.  The debate is never over and eventually we can regain those freedoms we have once lost.

Certainly I am a believer that nothing is needed to last forever.  The idea that the draft was needed in 1940 in the US was argued, debated and then happened.  Eventually though the draft was no longer required and it is now gone.  Once in the past this act was necessary.  It is possible that it is still needed today.  It should be argued by people and if it is still needed it can be reenacted.  But one day, one hopes that racism is thoroughly crushed, we can repeal it and regain the freedoms we lost to it.  Freedom of choice is not something to be simply ignored.

David March