Me: The Rand Paul debate is interesting. Paul is basically saying that it is a bad business decision to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, sexuality, etc. but private businesses should be allowed to do it nonetheless. His argument is that our votes as consumers will be cast and these businesses will suffer which will discourage businesses from discriminating; essentially it will all come out in the wash. That does make sense. However, would America's collective consciousness be where it is- where Americans have become civilized enough to boycott such businesses- if it weren't forced to confront racism for the last 50 years as a result of the very government intervention that he deplores?
Comment: i think it's an extremely privileged perspective to think that the "market" will correct any sort of bias or [...isms]. people are not without bias. it takes some sort of legal rule (and developed social standards) to actually confront oppression that may be tolerated or even applauded in mainstream society. the supreme court has played this vital role...in order to uphold justice. without key court decisions, our country would be very different than it is today...
Me: I didn't say the market would correct any sort of bias and I don't think he did either. He is saying that the market would discourage explicit discrimination based on "isms." Whether it's because of our politically-correct paradigm or for more benevolent reasons, that is undeniably true. But he ignores the history and the resulting evolution of ... See Moresocial standards that have, among other much more important things, changed the way people consume. By ignoring that history- which includes but is not limited to the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the court decisions you alluded to- he is hoping to avoid some key arguments FOR government intervention which has, as you said, forced Americans to confront oppression.
Comment: It is possible, perhaps, to look at consumption as central to Civil Rights in America. For example, businesses began advertising and marketing to African-Americans through magazines, the radio, etc. Businesses started to recognize AA purchasing power and brought them more into America's mainstream. But the power of the markets has severe limits, I ... See Morethink. At the same time, real estate companies still excluded African-Americans from white neighborhoods. I think Chad's question is a good one and I think Rand Paul, like most libertarians, underestimates the importance of government intervention in remaking America's social, cultural, and economic life. This has been a reality since at least 1880 and 1890 and progressives forced government to become more active in the face of industrializing.
Comment: The appropriateness of his statements just depends on one's view of markets (spoken like a true capitalist, I know). Obviously, for a long time in certain regions of the country, markets and economic incentives (i.e., opening your business to larger audiences and thus larger profits) were unable to compensate for social norms and human behavior to ... See Morethe detriment of a great many individuals (and businesses).
In the years since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the economy of those regions has greatly improved. Calling the current markets in the U.S. "free" would be a mistake, but this is one example of a scenario where government regulation helped change not only economic circumstances but helped reform social norms.
But what about those businesses with an interest in discriminating certain individuals? The 7/11 clerk whose sign reads "no more than two students in the store at a time," or the casino owner with a valid business interest in kicking out card-counters from the blackjack table? The Act did a good job at identifying certain suspect classes and providing them with protection, but certain businesses can - and should - discriminate for any number of reasons other than those enumerated in the Act.
Bottom line, the guy put his foot in his mouth big time. But if he's going for the Libertarian and Tea Party vote, I guess he's got to stick to his guns. Just a poorly-handled situation by him and whoever is running his PR. I'm sure he doesn't think we should go back to segregated water fountains and buses.
On a side note, when the story broke I actually thought Ron Paul had named his son after Ayn Rand. Turns out "Rand" is just short for "Randal," which was kind of a bummer.
Comment: You've got a good point, Chad. Would the market have discouraged a restaurant owner in the 1960s Deep South from discriminating against black people? Of course not - in some places, restaurants could have gone out of business if they DIDN'T discriminate. Markets are great for some things - like allocating economic resources efficiently in the short... See More term - but if you want long-term social change, sometimes the government needs to step in. Just like if you want the social costs of pollution to be factored into business decisions, you need cap and trade, and if you want consumer protection factored in you need a legal system that allows for major punitive damages. Rand Paul's argument may have a certain internal logical consistency, but he's as poor a student of economics as he is the Constitution if he's can't wrap his head around the economic concept of "market failure."
Me: Couple of things: (1) How does the market do a good job of allocating economic resources in the short term? The minimum wage is still embarrassingly low and who knows the limits of exploitation if there weren't a minimum wage (and basic labor laws). Since under Capitalism, a corporation has to maximize profit by law at the expense of all other ... See Moreconsiderations, the *fair* allocation of resources is of no concern to the "market." Maybe I was confused as to what you meant. (2) Some(I) would argue that long term social change is a result of movements that make the change popular enough for politicians to get involved without fear of losing votes among their constituency and therefore their power. (3) If you want the social costs of pollution to be factored into business decisions, you need to charge $5 a gallon and aggressively pursue alternative energy sources to dirty ones. My cell phone can do everything but teleport me home after a long night of drinking; you're telling me that efficient, clean energy is beyond our reach. It's not, but because politicians are devout capitalists, they are by nature, shortsighted, or just plain greedy.
You know we think along the same lines, Brendan, and you probably expected me to take everything a step further, or a step too far (as far as you're concerned). I like the way you described Paul's argument as having "certain internal logical consistency." I couldn't quite wrap my head around why I was taking it seriously and thought it warranted a serious response.
I do think that a forward-thinking politican can push a movement over the top, but I was saying that most of the time the govt. is forced to catch up by an angry electorate. The Vietnam War protests are the most obvious example of that in modern times.
Morning Prayer
12 years ago
