Libertarians on Civil Rights

Okay, so I’m a Libertarian on a majority of issues, and a registered member of the Libertarian Party. On the Rachel Maddow show she got Rand Paul kinda nailed down on a single issue. Race. And he was not really ready for it. 

You see, a true Libertarian holds one thing more important than everything else: Liberty. It may sound silly, but that is kind of the heart and soul of Libertarianism. We believe in personal liberty over almost everything else. Want gay Marriage? Libertarians are okay with that because we don’t want to limit your liberty. Drugs? Your life, your choice, your liberty. Got it?

Now, on the Rachel Maddow Show, she questioned Rand Paul about a specific provision of the Civil Rights Bill, the provision that said private businesses can’t discriminate. This is a sticky spot for Libertarians. You see, on the one hand, we are anti-racism. Racism is evil and takes away people’s liberties. On the other, I don’t want to tell someone to do in their own property, or a diner on private property.

So we run into a philosophical wall, our core principle is pulling itself apart. A libertarian is being forced to choose between a public government taking away the liberty of a private businessman to run his business, or allow a private businessman to take away the liberty of a private citizen. It’s a really horrible and awkward situation.

Over the past day I’ve heard two rebuttals to Rand Paul. The first, is that that anti-discrimination laws in private businesses are similar to health-code regulations, they’re just basic public goods laws that protect the public good. That’s a good argument. Were I in congress in 1964 that argument would have convinced me to vote for the Civil Rights Bill.

Another good argument is that the Commerce Clause in the constitution allows congress to pass laws concerning interstate business. If a black American is traveling between states and can’t get a hotel, the Commerce Clause allows congress to force the hotel to accept them, under this argument, it’s assumed that Americans have a right to travel freely. Frankly, I have a few problems with the logic behind the premise and the broadened understanding of the commerce clause, but, the idea that Americans, regardless of skin color, have a right to travel without undue obstruction is a compelling argument.

I’ll offer my own. Wide spread segregation was a crime of horrible and epic proportions. It limited, diminished, punished, hurt and degraded an entire segment of the American population, citizens one and all of them. The act, in singular, may be nothing more than the exorcising of one’s property rights, but in whole become nothing less than a defilement of the most basic principles of “all men are created equal.” Segregation was the sentencing of an entire race for a crime never committed, a punishment without trial or conviction. America was founded to provide freedom to all of us, and that has to be protected. Our joint freedom to travel, or simply exist, to engage with our fellow citizens and share the same experiences is vital to the nation. If our constitution doesn’t exist to protect us from punishment without trial, what is it for?