Rand Paul's Faux Pas page 3
But Rand’s statement went to the initial passage of
civil rights laws, not the continuation of these laws. Can the laws that mandate
that corporations must hire a quota of their workforce as minorities be shown to
have been an effective equalizer of the races? In many instances, they can be
shown to have directly impacted the lives of individuals within protected
minorities, and impacted the lives of those in the majority who were legally
forced to make concessions, often the concession of not hiring the most
qualified person for a position as a tradeoff. Another evident result was
resentment by all those in the majority who had their rights to make business
decisions limited while others were given the right to sue them for racial
discrimination in order to get a job whether or not discrimination occurred.
Just as all-white schools would be too crowded to accommodate the influx of
bussed-in black students if they didn’t bus out white students to fill the
vacancies in the black schools from which the black students were transferred,
white business owners experienced the opportunity cost of having to turn away
employment applicants who should have had the job based on merit.
Yet, this basic tenet holds true: Equal treatment
does not mean special or preferential treatment over others. Any law that
upholds and enforces discriminatory practices based on race is a poor law.
Favoritism and advantage do not result in equality for those whose rights are
infringed. The discriminatory application of laws serves only the collective
interests of minorities, while subverting in the interests of the general
populace. Such laws do not apply when whites are discriminated against when
seeking employment in predominantly black businesses, so the double standard by
itself invalidates laws that attempt to right inequalities. Integration in the
workplace is a private choice and does not have constitutional implications.
But can the principle of individual freedom be taken
too far, be adhered to too adamantly in the face of long-standing injustice
against people in a minority? If allowed to be controlled by their base
instincts, some people will always treat others unfairly based on insignificant
factors, such as race. Can principle and practice ever be compatible? Yes, when
minorities are protected to the same standards, and their right to discriminate
is protected by the principle of individual freedom. The right is equal,
allowing anyone’s base or virtuous instincts to influence them without penalty
or restriction of law. When decisions revert back to the marketplace and profit
considerations, green and peach-tinted currency will right inequalities in race.
Now, Rand is left to backtrack and fill the holes in
his public statements, defending them or recanting them, or explaining himself,
or giving specific examples of the validity of unadulterated individual freedom
that should be protected by law, not exceptionally abridged to provide a few
with favored treatment. Backpedaling will be hard for Rand, since his
inconsistent stance on other issues decidedly diverge from typical Libertarian
philosophy. Rand opposes abortion, gay marriage, and decriminalization of
nonprescription drugs, while embracing the Libertarian mantle when it comes to
abolishing the minimum wage laws and ending gun control.
I hope that Rand is able to succinctly respond with an analogy or two that allow voters to understand how government intrusion by force devastates the personal liberty of so many so that a few may benefit.