By Michigan J. Blogger
There has been a lot of talk the past few weeks about whether or not Kentucky senate candidate Rand Paul (R) is a racist because of some comments he may have or may not have made about businesses being able to deny people service based on their race.
He made some comments on the "Rachel Maddow Show" but she asked leading questions to make him sound like a racist. Of course she asked if a business should be allowed to deny black people service. Did she ever think to ask if Rand believes black businesses owners should be allowed to deny white people service?
Maddow is one of those Super Liberals who think minorities never do anything wrong and you can pick out racist Conservatives because they A) like vanilla ice cream and B) are conservatives.
Anyway, Rand made some comments and then made more comments that sort of contradicted his first comments. What I took from all the "controversy" is Rand feels the government to be too involved with private businesses.
FOX News' John Stossel was on "The O'Reilly Factor" shortly after the Rand comments went public and he sort of agreed that businesses should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.
Stossel is a Libertarian and they do not like government getting involved with pretty much anything. In recent weeks, other Libertarians have backed up the idea of business discrimination because they have the right to do so.
I agree the government needs to be smaller, but when it comes to businesses that serve the public, they must not be allowed to discriminate.
Why? Because these businesses receive benefits from the government, which is supported with the taxes of all Americans. Whether Libertarians like it or not, there is a need for the government to provide basic oversight so businesses don't sell products that can harm or defraud the public.
Those oversights also provide protection for retailers so they get ripped off by wholesalers. I know Libertarians say the free market will take care of that but why should people be harmed by a business that cuts corners because "eventually" the free market will put that business under.
Libertarians crow about how everything should be privatized but how many refuse public services? How many libertarian business owners believe they should be left alone call the cops when they are robbed? Or go to the courts when they have a legal grievance and expect the government run courts to make the other guy pay?
The problem with Libertarianism is when you have a society that is bonded together and that society has the expectation of some protection by the government, then there will be some laws that force businesses to do certain things they don't like.
Those laws should come in the form of protecting citizens.
I can understand the Libertarian side of things because the government never knows when to quit. Instead of just making sure businesses are not cheating or harming people, it tells businesses what they can't sell based on some politically correct idea of what is good for people.
A business should be able to sell cigars, beer, fatty and fried foods, as long as they don't try to deceive the public. For example, a businesses should be able to sell candy that is 100% sugar because people have the choice of what to eat. However, that business should not be able to tell diabetics that candy has no sugar or will actually lower their blood sugar levels.
There is a delicate balance between legitimate government oversight and intrusion. Unfortunately, our government has crossed WAY over the line into intrusion.
However, that doesn't give a business the right to deny a person service based on race.
I'm sorry, but it is precisely this milquetoast that has us in the fix we're in.
I'm sorry, but this is just a strawman argument against libertarianism.
It is not an argument against Libertarianism. It is a point that Libertarians want total government NON-involvement to the point they want to be allowed to discriminate. That is simply wrong. And every Libertarian business owner that accepts anything from the government, they do not have the right to deny legal U.S. citizens service. If they don't like, they can go somewhere else and open a business.
The business owners don't "accept" the services from the government. They are forced to pay for them just like every other taxpayer. (Large corporations excepted, but they are nothing but constructs of big government.) The small business owner calls the cops because the state ensures that there are no other options. The business owner uses the court system, because there are no other options. Funny how you start out talking about the right to associate then switch mid stream to the government protecting against fraud and shoddy products. Why not continue the same stream of thought? Those two issues are different issues. Personally, I trust UL or Consumer Reports much more than I do any government body.
What you describe as libertarian isn't libertarian. There are no libertarian argument in favor of fraud, "cutting corners," and harming others for example.
Is calling the cops, a service you pay for, considered "accepting anything from the government?" Taken to it's conclusion, since all of us "accept" from the government in one way or another, they should be able to dictate every category of our lives.
But what about the flip-side? How do I know how NOT to do business with a racist nut?
If he was allowed to put up a sign on his private property that said "Nutjob Racists Only" for example, I'd know to steer clear of that establishment. But since I'm not allowed to know if the owner is a twisted lunatic or not, I end up doing business with someone I'd have preferred to avoid.
Think too, how well that sign would work! Nobody would go there except the extreme freaks. They wouldn't be able to stay in business. They'd be ostracised out of the community! They'd be considered (what they are) the lowest of the low. Scorned.
So who does the law against private discrimination really protect? It's starting to look like it protects the racists more than anyone else.