In Defense of Rand Paul

Republican Senate Candidate Rand Paul is being excoriated by the media for his comments that he thinks some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were wrong.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, and places that provide a service to the public. Congress did this under the "Commerce Clause" of the U. S. Constitution, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Blacks were required to ride in the back of city owned buses. This proves governments are not kind and compassionate.

Congress overstepped its authority. The clause gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States, not among individuals. The clause prevents one State from charging tariffs or restricting trade from another State. Congress could have asked the States for a constitutional amendment that would have allowed Congress, "To regulate Commerce among individuals". Why didn't they make this request? They knew their lust for power would be rejected.

Congress had the right to set hiring policies for the Federal Government and tell federal employees to boycott private businesses that discriminate.

Individuals who have a restaurant should not be regulated by Congress. If an owner of a restaurant wants to enter into a voluntary contract with her customers, Congress has no authority to interfere.

When minorities gained the right to force some private owner of a business to serve the minorities, millions of people lost the right of free association. The laws of unintended consequences.

It is immoral to deny a weary traveler food and lodging just because they are of a different race. But it is not up to congress to legislate morality. I always thought when I went on to the property of a business that I had to obey that property owner's rights and rules whether I liked them or not.

The government should protect the private property of business owners. The governments of different States failed to protect the private property rights of those minority business owners who would compete with the white owners of businesses.

If a white owner of a restaurant refused to serve blacks, it was up to the government to protect a black owner of a restaurant who was willing to compete next door and serve both blacks and whites.

The late Harry Browne explained in his book, "Why Government Doesn't Work", and in this article about the Civil Rights Act, that the Civil Rights Act made aristocrats out of some, minorities and women, who could sue over discrimination. But no white male could sue for discrimination.

With free enterprise and competition, protected by the State, it would not have been long before someone would have realized the blacks made up 13% of the market. Just as business began to grow into chains nationwide, like Holiday Inn and MacDonald's, it would have been only a matter of time before competition would have solved the segregation problem.

Technology, science, and free enterprise will liberate people. Can anyone believe the competitive markets of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Starbucks and global competition would allow a business to succeed by ignoring 13% of the market? People continue to praise foolishness and irrationality.

Does anyone really believe that in 21st century that there would still be discrimination in businesses? Any business that practiced discrimination of the past would be ridiculed out of the market. Boycotts would serve as fodder for the 24 hour news media.

Minorities benefited from the Civil Rights Act because there were so few black owned businesses it was simply math that white business owners would have to hire black employees. Without the Civil Rights Act the number of small businesses owned by blacks would have been drastically more than they are now. Blacks would have found owning a business their best way out of poverty. The government's own licensing requirements and other regulations made it difficult for a minority to start a business.

Before the Railway Labor Act, blacks moved north to work in factories in the 1930s. They were hired first because they would work for lower wages. Capital flows to the most efficient means of production. After the railway labor act and minimum wage laws, blacks could not offer their services at lower wages.

One former politician, I can't provide a source, said the welfare and civil riots legislation were anti riot laws. I believe this is true. I'm amazed there were not more riots by blacks in the 1950s and 60s.

Despite the law requiring integration, which was supposed to eliminate ghettos and poverty, those same ghettos still exist and are more violent. Before the Civil Right laws the black families were cohesive. After the government interference the black families have been destroyed. As a teen around 1950, I went into black neighborhoods, at dark, and felt safe.

In 1969, before the Civil Rights Act started destroying families, the high school graduation rate was 77 percent. In 2007 the graduation rate was 68.8%. The continuing decline in high school graduation rates correlates with the increase in unmarried mothers, caused by the Civil Rights Act.

Time and technology is what changes a culture. Young people of today would be appalled at a "Whites Only" sign on a restaurant. Neither did anyone in 1960, before the birth control pill, think women would have enough leisure time and energy to jog and go to a gym to work out. Any time my mother had a leisurely moment from her long hours of work she would sit down and rest, not go jogging!

To say discrimination would still exist today without the Civil Rights Act is like saying women would still not be allowed to vote had the 19th amendment not been passed. Can you really imagine any State today that would not allow women to vote? That state would be boycotted so much their economy would shrink and women would move out of the state. No 19th amendment was necessary, yet, the humanitarians think only big centralized governments can do good. History shows just how evil big governments have been in the past.

Another under reported cause for the Civil Rights Act was the competition between capitalism of the west and the communism of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was using the discrimination of blacks in America to show their client States, most with minorities, what would happen under capitalism. American government leaders had to eliminate discrimination to show the world the benefits of capitalism and democracy over communism.

Blacks supported the Civil Rights Act because they were loyal Americans. Many had served in WW II and Korea. Most all blacks were Christians. Today many blacks are Muslim. Many immigrants are Muslim and loyal to their native country and culture. Will the Civil Rights Act survive another 56 years? Will Christians be allowed to refuse service to a Muslim? Must a small Muslim business owner be required to hire a Christian? Can a black business owner refuse to hire someone who is a member of the Klu Klux Klan?

Update 6/11/2010- Today's Associated Press story said the Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan advocated, when she worked in the Clinton administration, for the right of a religious person to deny rent to an unmarried couple. I agree with Kagan. The government should not interfere with private contracts between individuals.

Charles Tolleson