I recently watched Rachel Maddow’s interview with Rand Paul (available all over the web, so I won’t post a link). Paul, as I’m sure you know, has gotten a lot of press recently because his brand of libertarianism means that he thinks private businesses should be able to discriminate.
As Paul keeps saying, this does not mean that he thinks they SHOULD discriminate, but that the government shouldn’t be able to tell a private business owner how “he” should be able to run “his” business.
Much of the debate has centered on the racist implications of the remarks–but let’s give Paul the benefit of the doubt for the sake of my particular argument. Assuming he’s not actually supporting discrimination, what’s the problem with his argument? Or, what are the two that immediately leap to mind?
1. The government already gets to tell the business owner how to run his/her business in many ways. It gets to tell you about having safe exits in case of fire and that you have to operate within certain health codes and that you have to not abuse your staff in certain ways. Owners are also not supposed to cheat their customers. These regulations are accepted by everyone except those who want to violate the rights of their customers and employees for profit.
2. Paul’s main point is that the government should be regulated, but private businesses should not. That would be fine if the private businesses did not benefit at all from taxpayer funds, but they do. The taxes I pay provide the fire department, the police department, etc. My taxes mean that governmental agencies have to serve me and have to serve private businesses, even if the individuals who serve are racist. Additionally, it means that those members of the fire and police department who would not be allowed into a bigot’s business would have to respond, which is why overt bigotry in business just isn’t allowed.
I’m putting the discussion from FB here where it belongs:
Frank Mottley Point 1. seems to imply that no one does anything right unless obligated under law, and that sans regulation (any given one) we’d all be victims. ie. you say, “These regulations are accepted by everyone except those who want to violate the rights of their customers and employees for profit.” This is total nonsense — a given regulation can be …
See More
Yesterday at 6:01pm
Denise Du Vernay Businesses whose leaders are inclined to behave properly have no problem with a regulation. It’s not necessarily right, but it’s true, Frank. If it’s a non-issue, why would anyone have trouble with the law?
It’s the same with human beings: have you noticed that majority of people who want marijuana legalized, for example, want it legalized …
See More
Yesterday at 6:20pm ·
Frank Mottley Your assertions, aside from being specious, are unrelated — the fact that people specifically interested in marijuana (for whatever reason) tend to not want to go to jail for their interest does not correlate to any aspect of business who “act improperly” or who would otherwise do so absent regulation.
The accurate corollary to your first …
See More
Yesterday at 7:00pm
Denise Du Vernay Maybe marijuana is a bad example, but I stand by my point (and Karma’s assertion) that most people/businesses/cats/whatever don’t have problems with laws that don’t adversely affect them directly.
Yesterday at 7:20pm ·
Frank Mottley It is probably true that most people and businesses are indifferent to legislation which does not affect them. However, I am 99% certain that that was not Karma’s point — perhaps I am incorrect, but I read the point in question to mean that only those who would otherwise violate the rights of others oppose regulation.
“These regulations are accepted by everyone except those who want to violate the rights of their customers and employees for profit.”
Yesterday at 9:18pm
Casey Barker “If it’s a non-issue, why would anyone have trouble with the law?” For the same reason that we object to laws that allow a cop to pull over any random Hispanic to check his citizenship. Or search your house without a warrant. Or wiretap your phone because you made calls to Iran. Just because I’m not doing anything “wrong” doesn’t mean I don’t …
See More
19 hours ago
Karma Waltonen I love causing controversy! Hee hee!
17 hours ago
Denise Du Vernay @Casey: It’s only an “intrusion” if you disagree with it. Thus, if you disagree with it, it is no longer a non-issue. If you disagree with cops being able to pull over someone who looks Latino to check their papers, that makes you a good person. If it’s an “intrusion” to observe laws that protect the rights of all customers and employees, that makes you a bad person.
I don’t know why I’m trying to explain it when Karma said it best in her original post . . .
8 hours ago ·
Frank Mottley So if the law aligns with your personal opinion, it’s a just law, and people who oppose such a law are bad people. Honest, if inadvertantly so. (Nothing personal — this is of course the way the vast majority of people view law and government, whether they want to admit it or not.)
8 hours ago
Frank Mottley @Denise: Taking another tack, to reduce the vitriol potential and misconceptions, let’s for a moment remove specific issues from the discussion (business, marijuana, immigration, etc.)
What I am hearing you say is that if a law protects rights, it is just and those who oppose it would infringe on the rights of others.
Is that, ultimately, what you are saying?
8 hours ago
Casey Barker Sorry this is long. Maybe I need to get my own blog. 🙂
@Karma pt. 1: I’m pretty sure Rand would say all those regulations are unnecessary, too. Businesses that discriminate against, endanger, or treat poorly their customers/employees are at a competitive disadvantage to those who don’t because the best customers/employees will go elsewhere. Such businesses don’t last long. This is especially true in an era of social justice meted out over the internet.
@Karma pt. 2: It’s true that some businesses do benefit unfairly from taxpayers in the form of subsidies and protections — we give oil companies the right to take natural resources, then limit their liability in a spill. I think we all agree that’s stupid.
But amortized municipal services like police and fire are usually paid through property taxes, and businesses pay those, too, often disproportionately high. (In other words, the bigot’s business probably subsidizes the service for your home, not the other way around, but I know this is tangential to your point.)
More to the point: I assume you’d still put out a fire at the bigot’s home. How is servicing the bigot’s business any different from servicing his home? What about a business run out of a bigot’s home? To me, it’s all private property, so if he only wants to invite [black/white] people onto his property, that’s his concern. I don’t see how it matters whether the invitation was to transact business or socialize.
@Denise: I think the first line of every sci-fi dystopia story is “I don’t do anything wrong, so why should I care if the gov’t does [insert intrusion here]. I’m pretty sure that’s also the line the Republicans used to justify every incursion into personal liberty since 9/11. I suppose mine is a stance against what I see as a slippery slope. A more pragmatic take (and relevant to Karma’s pt. 1) is that such laws usually A) waste taxpayer resources on enforcement and B) have unintended consequences. (If this weren’t too long already, I’d expound on that…)
6 hours ago
Denise Du Vernay My point, Casey and Frank, is that you can usually tell the quality of a law by WHO agrees/disagrees with it.