Rand Paul on civil rights (legislation)

Here's his appearance on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow. (There is a five-minute introduction, including video/audio clips of his interviews with NPR and the C-J.) The primary subject is the use of federal law to deal with (local) businesses which engage in (overt) discrimination.

I saw this on some liberal blogs this morning and figured they were just digging for partisan dirt. Then I got a call to do an interview with Joe Arnold for WHAS. So, apparently, it will have a few legs. For reasons I'll cover below, I'll be surprised if it has much gas after this week.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are a number of interesting things to consider here:

First, politically: Paul did an artful job in answering difficult questions about a nuanced position. As he did with abortion during the GOP primary (a much larger issue), he should be able to weather this as well. He's careful not to fall into the yes/no soundbite "trap" and at the end of the day, sounds like a very reasonable person. As Grayson found with abortion, attacks like this on Paul will likely seem desperate and backfire.

Second, Paul mostly alludes to the largest philosophical issue at hand (and his opponents and most of the media ignore the question altogether): If we find someone else's behavior to be repugnant, when should we seek legislation as a potential remedy? (I address this at great length in my book on Christianity and public policy.)

In a nutshell, it boils down to a distinction between "justice" (when direct and significant harm is done to others) and "morality" (when not-- typically, when the bulk of the damage is done to oneself and the behavior is still considered sinful or immoral). As such, discrimination can fit as a justice issue, but then one is left to consider practical issues.

Third, if one wants to invoke government as a means to various ends, there is still the vital question of (de)centralization: should government operate at the neighborhood, local, state, or federal levels?

Fourth, Paul makes a number of practical points in drawing comparisons and drawing out inferences of intervening in this manner. Paul allows for a distinction between public sector activity (where public sector enforcement is appropriate) and private sector activity (where private sector responses may be "adequate" and public sector enforcement may be quite troubling).

For example, private clubs and private schools are allowed to "discriminate". Will that be discontinued as well? When should we abridge "free speech" under the 1st Amendment-- even when we find such speech offensive or repulsive? If we prevent restaurant owners from having rules in their businesses, would they not be allowed to prevent people from coming in their establishments with firearms?

Three other considerations:

1.) It's interesting (and incoherent) that the C-J avidly and openly supports various forms of "institutional racism", while decrying Paul's stance on using government to deal with personal racism.

2.) Paul makes the important point that such discrimination is bad for business. (He didn't make the corollary point that competitive markets tend to drive such inefficiencies out of the market.)

3.) Maddow is referring to a law from a much different time and place-- the 1960s. Whatever the ethical and practical merits of the legislation then, it's a completely different topic today. What does/would happen to a company today that actively engaged in racial discrimination?