Pure theory is a trap!

[kenrexford]

I don't know whether Paul's position is one resulting from pure theory or not, but I find the controversy regarding the Civil Rights Act interesting in a troubling way.

 

I mean, years ago, I found myself in a lot of hot water myself because I would routinely take what I believe to be theory-pure positions. Some on the right would call me a raging leftist for the theory-pure positions, whereas some on the left, in a different discussion, would call me a raging right-winger racist. And yet, neither seemed correct to me at all, because neither the right nor the left seemed "theory pure" but rather exception laden and inconsistent.

 

Paul's pure position (if it is pure) seems correct to me. If the role of government is minimal, and if freedom of the individual is fundamental, then forcing any business relationship between private individuals should be prohibited activity by the government, whether the cause be "just" or not. If Joe wants to run a coffee shop that only serves whites, I would never go there because he is an asshole. That said, my purist theory does not allow me to justify forcing Joe to serve everyone.

 

There was a decision by the United States Supreme Court years ago, one that I cannot recall but that icluded a name began maybe with an L, (anyone know?). That decision at its core removed the idea of individual liberty away from the realm of business activities. I remain convinced that this position, although supported unquestionably by good intentions and pure motivations, is dangerous, theory inconsistent, and unconstitutional, in that the reach seemed to exceed past protection of one from another. Instead, it seemed to empower one over another based on politics. hence, danger. A lot of good things came from this, but a lot of bad things also followed.

 

I suppose that I have developed a tolerance for exceptions that are not theory pure but are rather political and values-oriented. But, it troubles me to see a man who may well be relying on a theory pure stance, a very intellectually honest opinion (if, again, this is the true cause for the conclusion), being slammed for the wrong (perhaps) reason, namely an assumption that his conclusion is not truly theory-pure but rather the opposite -- values based, like most others, and the critics, analyze things. If the theory-pure conclusion is that part of the Civil Rights act is unconstitutional, or at least unsound, then that result could be troubling and disappointing to Paul. Attributing that conclusion to a values bias against minorities seems wildly unfair.

 

I am not saying that I love Paul. I have no idea about him. However, this seems to me like attacking the ACLU when they defend a child porn guy or the KKK on speech grounds by attributing to the ACLU a love of child porn or an endorsement of white supremacy. Pure theory leads to undesirable results, even to the person who is the purist.

 

The upside, or downside for that matter, of a theory man is that we know what his view will be if we learn his theory, but that means we know that the good and the bad will come together whether we like the results or not.

[hrothgar]

Bruce Barlett has a great blog post attacking Rand Paul for fixating on ivory power theory and ignoring reality:

 

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce...er-civil-rights

 

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

 

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

[hrothgar]

One important note:

 

Barry Goldwater and Ron Paul raised very similar critiques regarding the Civil Rights Act.

 

Ron Paul is routinely criticized as a racist.

Barry Goldwater is not.

 

At the end of the day, its fine and dandy to try to justify your actions on the basis of theory. However, people are also going to judge the company that you keep and the actions that you take. When you lend your name to publications like

 

the Ron Paul Political Report

the Ron Paul’s Freedom Report

the Ron Paul Survival Report

 

people are going to start judging you by the contents of those publications (and said contents are downright scary).

 

In the case of Rand Paul, I think that he's getting smearing through his association with his father. Then again, given that he owes all the interest in his political career largely due to his father, its hard to do more than cry crocodile tears...

[hrothgar]

And a great quote from Andrew Sullivan's blog

 

Here's the problem with Rand Paul's statements over the Civil Rights Act.  If he were truly a pure libertarian, they'd be defensible theoretical views, as you point out.  But, as Time magazine notes:

 

Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

 

Paul is willing to bend the issue of pure personal freedom for drug laws, abortion, and even coal subsidies ... but he thinks telling a restaurant it cannot discriminate is a bridge too far?  I still don't think he's racist, but what he chooses to be ideologically pure about certainly raises my eyebrow.

[kenrexford]

Well, now I'm convinced that the theory argument, although troubling for me, has no application to Rand Paul. If exceptions are allowed, then he is not a THEORY PURIST. So, let loose the dogs of war, I say.

[cherdanno]

I thought in the interview with Maddow he just came off as an arrogant idiot. I mean it's one thing to stand up for your believes when you think it's more important than losing some votes and getting bad press. It's another thing not realizing that this belief would cost him votes and bad press, refusing to answer question and attacking his interviewer.

 

Seems to be a good match to follow up Bunning.

[kenberg]

I agree entirely with the skepticism about pure theory and the paean to exceptions based on pragmatism and common sense. It's easier if we just go with theory or just abandon all theory but in fact there needs to be some sort of sensible blend of the two. And we can argue about which blends are indeed sensible.

 

As to the Maddow-Paul interview I had not heard of it but I looked it up. Unbearable. I wanted to kick them both. Very early in the interview I understood that Paul's position was that any form of discrimination should be outlawed when public funds were involved but that private businesses should not be subject to the same laws. Then we redid the same question and the same answer. After twenty times or so I stopped watching. She might at least have tried some variant. For example, if a business wishes to discriminate then is it still entitled to, say, summon the publicly funded fire department if the need arises? Of course it's game playing but at least it would be a different question. I felt I was stuck in some Groundhog Day Hell.

 

 

We will see if he can actually get elected. Instead of asking him about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he should be asked his views on the issues of today. Dr. No, I presume? Perhaps the people of Kentucky will agree with that. I am hoping that they do not.

[cherdanno]

Btw, since Ken made a post with this title - shouldn't this be under bridge-related discussion?