Comments on: Private Discrimination, Rand Paul, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Property - Prosperity - Peace Sat, 09 May 2015 08:06:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andrei Mincov Tue, 31 May 2011 04:40:15 +0000 Most people unwittingly consider laws against private discrimination one of the greatest social achievements of the modern times. In my new article in support of abolition of anti-discrimination laws, I explain how these laws are nothing more than a tool of everyone’s enslavement.

Read it at

By: ka1igu1a Sat, 29 May 2010 10:58:25 +0000 Rand Paul is no libertarian

Rand Paul’s own statements and positions indicate he views a strong, primary role of the State as a means to enforce cultural normality.

Concerning Title II of the civil rights act, it should be noted that the left libertarians, whom you often criticize, mostly dissented from supporting it in the commentary that followed the Maddow v Paul debacle. I agree for the most part that “beltway libertarians” rushed to defend Title II because of political correctness.

There is a legitimate, radical libertarian dissent from Title II, but it does necessitate accepting certain violations of the property rights of those who relied on Jim Crow laws for their enforcement. In other words, you would have to recognize a case for trespass disobedience in civil protest over illegitimately enforced property rights. You can’t take an atomistic view of property rights here because these rights are a function of zoning, regulations, etc.

I discuss this here:

Frankly, from a libertarian standpoint, if you are going to invoke the Feds as an enforcer of justice, it would make more sense, and be more just, to enforce reparations and redistribution of property in this historical context, rather than to constrain freedom of association under the auspices of the commerce clause to enforce public accommodation access to illegitimately held property that, frankly, was preserved. In many respects, the Civil Rights Act was a triumph of the Status Quo, in that it was direct social action by the african american community which had desegregated many of the lunch counters in the South(sans, no doubt, however, in certain places in the deep south such as Mississippi) , and it was this movement which resulted in political legislation. But the political legislation also seemed to neuter the direct social action of the african community, and the community settled into a sort of communitarian, group identity politics. So when you had the US Federal Government embark on instituting the New Jim Crow, built on the back of the Drug War, a war legally sanctified by a broad interpretation of the commerce clause, 45 years later, the United States now has the largest prison population in the world, half it comprised by african americans, and no one says a word. And that’s the problem with communitarian, group identity politics, the “leaders” end up getting bought off.

Last note; the Paul v Maddow debate was a pretty sorry facsimile of the libertarian vs social democracy debate. We’ve has more intellectually compelling debates in the past, as I note here:

By: iamse7en Tue, 25 May 2010 22:39:50 +0000 Yes, I was surprised that there weren’t more libertarians out there defending Rand Paul. My first daily dose of libertarianism was Cato’s blog, which I still enjoy. However, I do find myself agreeing more with the LRC-Mises-type libertarians. What do you call yourselves? Anarcho-libertarians? Very unimpressed with Cato’s treatment of the issue. How can you, as a libertarian, disagree with Rand on this? If anything, Rand should be more vocal about his support of property rights and our protection from an ever-growing state.