I certainly have some small "l" libertarian sympathies. Actually, I have quite a few of them - but only to a point. Extremists like Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul of Kentucky show the limitations of doctrinaire libertarianism in a humane, organized society.
Paul, while theoretically decrying racism of any kind, admits to opposing the portion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which bans private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. His logic? Private businesses are private and, as such, have the right to do whatever they damn well please, even if society finds their practices abhorrent. Any regulation or intrusion on the part of the government, Rand seems to argue, is tantamount to ownership of the business. The People don't own it? Then we get no say.
Naturally, this argument is absurd on so many levels I barely know where to begin. Obviously, the federal government has the right - and the obligation - to protect its citizens from the abuses of those who do business here. Despite the fact that we are a free market economy, it's a regulated market... and for damned good reasons. The belief that private enterprise should have absolutely no restrictions on its behavior is a position well outside of the political mainstream. And as we've seen from the recent abuses of Wall Street and the country's biggest banks, the government "keeping its nose out of it" can bring the entire economy to its knees and practically destroy the country. But we need to butt out?
And what about pollution? Or poisoning? Or fraud? If the government is empowered to decide that business owners are prohibited from acting in a criminal manner - which clearly it is - then who is to say what can or cannot be considered a crime? The vast majority of Americans supports making racial discrimination a non-starter when it comes to business practices on our soil, yet extremists like Dr. Paul don't believe we should have a say, except as it relates to where we spend our money. (And isn't it funny that corporations want to be treated like "people" when it comes to, say, political advertisements and contributions, but want special protections when it comes to breaking the law?)
Why is it that conservatives believe that owning a business is a right and not a privilege? We the People own the playing field and we get to decide the rules of the game. We are allowed to protect ourselves. We are allowed to decide what kind of nation we want to be. It is not our obligation to allow individuals who form companies in our country to run rampant and harm us. As FDR said, "Let us not forget that the government is ourselves and not an alien power over us". And whether the regulations come from the federal, state or local level, businesses need to be licensed and there are certain reasonable (and probably some unreasonable) ground rules they must adhere to if they want the privilege of setting up shop within our borders and taking advantage of all that the amazing American enterprise system has to offer. But of all the plausibly unreasonable restrictions placed on businesses, not racially discriminating is hardly one of them.
We are a nation of laws, and even many supposedly purist Libertarians like Dr. Paul claim to respect the rule of law. Yet they seem to believe that laws should only apply to individuals. Murder? Of course it should be illegal. Bank robbery? Throw away the key. But the minute a private business is involved? If it's the bank that's robbing us? Paul and his ilk suddenly switch tacks and claim that the government shouldn't get any say whatsoever in that business's practices. Or maybe SOME practices, okay, but not when it comes to civil rights laws. But the minute one makes allowances for some government intervention, then one's argument pretty much disintegrates. Why restrictions on fiduciary practices but not, say, hiring practices, or who you can or cannot exclude as a customer? Dr. Paul's ridiculous position can't possibly survive even the slightest amount of critical scrutiny, because, as his recent muddled backpedaling has shown, his logic is as tortuous as my colon... and just full of shit.
Laws are laws are laws, be they criminal or civil. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with making anyone who wants the great privilege of doing business in America to obey a few simple rules. Ought one of those rules be that business don't discriminate on the basis of race? It's an absolute no brainer. Yet Rand Paul's America would welcome restaurants which say "No Blacks or Dogs Allowed". He wouldn't eat there, of course, but he doesn't think he has a choice in the matter as to their existence. Thank God he's wrong.
See, there's that pesky Constitution - the one Rand Paul claims to cherish so deeply. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government wide latitude in regulating businesses - powers that have been regularly upheld by the Supreme Court, especially as it relates to civil rights laws. Even so, Paul's argument doesn't seem to be one of states rights vs. federal intrusion. His argument would seemingly apply to states and municipalities as well. If you believe that no government entity has the right to tell a business how to behave, then really it doesn't matter what government we're talking about. As even the most ardent "Tenther" must admit, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution provides that powers not granted to the feds are reserved to the states or the people. So how about state laws barring discrimination in private business? Or a public referendum? Would Paul object to those too? Sounds like it. Which is why his argument holds no water. You can't profess to love the Constitution while decrying many of its main precepts.
The bottom line is, We the People have every right do decide for ourselves, through legislation, how individuals and businesses must behave if they wish to live and function and profit in our society. We regulate individual behavior and we regulate collective behavior. Sure, you could claim that taking away your right to steal from the corner store is a violation of your freedom, but you'd get no sympathy; instead, you'd be run out of town on a rail. Why should a business's behavior be treated any differently?
Any way you look at it, it's pretty difficult to reasonably argue that the business of America is none of America's business.
Search This Blog
