That Rand Paul Interview

Ok, so Dr. Rand Paul's interview on Rachel Maddow seems to be a pretty hot topic this morning, according to facebook, at least. I thought I'd give my $.02 n the matter:

First of all, Dr. Paul's set of beliefs seem to be the following:

(1) He morally opposes ("abhors") any form of racism and discrimination.

(2) He opposes any racist or discriminatory practices of tax-funded state institutions, and supports legislation against such practices. 

(3) He supports the legal right of private business owners to engage in non-violent but racist or discriminatory practices. This is the necessary implication of taking very seriously the right of private property and the freedoms of association and speech that go along with it.

The above set of beliefs is completely consistent. I'm not sure that most people will realize this. As I have kind of discussed, there is a (very very important) difference between (morally) opposing X and legislating against X. The too often unspoken and overlooked fact is that legislating against X involves employing government force in order to prevent individuals from doing X. When X is something like murder or theft, then one can more easily make a case for legislating against it. When X is something like smoking pot or practicing one's right of free association in a discriminatory (but not violent) way, then the case for legislating against X is harder to make. The point: The use of force needs to be justified. In political discussions, it often isn't. This is a problem.

Unfortunately, however, Dr. Paul danced around and dodged Maddow's questions. He hardly made (3) clear. To be honest, he was acting a bit like a politician. But what is more disappointing is that he missed the chance to make the points that I make above, namely pointing out that legislation involves government force, which needs to be justified, especially when it involves violating the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. How bad have things gotten that even one of the more controversial "liberty-candidates" can't talk about such things openly and explicitly in public? Aren't these ideas supposed to be the very foundation of the Constitution? 

Where Dr. Paul did make some good points, which Maddow unsurprisingly wasn't interested in, was in mentioning that most of the Civil Rights Act was addressing state-institutionalized discrimination. Much of the worst discriminatory practices in American history were state-institutionalized, like Jim Crow Laws. Oh yeah, and slavery. In fact, many segregationist policies in the South, such as the infamous back-of-the-bus policies, prevented private enterprises from offering desegregated alternatives. Where we have a free market, a racist business only provides the opportunity for a non-racist business to increase their business. And does anyone really think that segregated or white-only restaurants are going to thrive? 

Aside from his question-dodging, I think Dr.Paul had a good interview. He wasn't quite filling the shoes of his old dad, but he did far better than your typical politician. I imagine he'll have plenty of chances to discuss these issues further; I hope he rises to the occasion.