Where Rand Paul Went Wrong

Rand Paul should have told Rachel Maddow what she asked him, without all his efforts to avoid the spin that he knew she would put on it. He was brave to go on her show in the first place, but he should have preempted her "leftist" socialist slant by bravely stating the truth:

He believes, as any rational political philosopher must, that people (all people) have the right and moral obligation to exercise their powers of discrimination in their affairs - private and public. The owner(s) of a business has(have) the right to conduct the business as he(they) see fit. This all assumes safe, healthy, non-threatening, non-violent goods and services, by the way. If said owner wants to serve whites only, and not blacks (or gays, or obese people, or Muslims, or Mexicans, or "overly" tattooed people, or nerdy white boys), that is his/their prerogative and right. What is to stop the blacks (or others) from walking out (of Woolworths in 1964) and taking their business to another establishment? I submit that what the Rachel Maddows of the world, and the blacks themselves (and other "targeted" or discriminated groups), are angry and indignant about is not the petty rejection of service, but the frequently awful and hideous violence that was (and, unfortunately, still is sometimes) committed against them.

So, why is this violence not the focus of the debate? Nobody would argue that whites have the right to beat the crap out of blacks, or hang them, or spit on them, or burn crucifixes on their lawns. This was ugliness of the purest form ... and criminal behaviour. This is what the blacks marched against primarily - for their very lives, for their safety. I don't blame them.

The big, fat problem was that the do-gooders and the fuzzy-thinkers (i.e. the "logically challenged"), got over-ambitious and formulated a "well-intentioned" law that went TOO FAR. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained 10 sections. It was Rand Paul's criticism of Title II that incurred the wrath of the Media. A brief of Title II reads: Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

For the record, Rand Paul is correct and right on this issue! To the extent that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced private action to abide by certain "moral constraints," in order to fit somebody's picture of what society ought to look like, was unconstitutional. To force a man/woman to act a certain way, when that person is NOT initiating force against another, is illegitimate use of force, and is, itself, reprehensible.

Thus, the Government of the United States of America is in breach of contract. The sloppy over-reaching of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just one of many, many cases of sloppy, ignorant, un-American thought. It's a shame that speaking out against these misapplications of the Constitution are seen as bigoted and mean. Interestingly, it is the other way around.

So, it's too bad Rand didn't go this route. He probably still would have been misquoted and taken out of context, but at least he could have gone to bed with the knowledge that he hadn't stumbled and given away the fight.