May 20, 2010

Rand Paul's lolbertarian country club

Item: "Senate nominee Rand Paul, R-KY, said he would have opposed forcing businesses to integrate under the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

Rand Paul held his victory party at the Bowling Green Country Club, which is either appropriate or not, depending on your perspective:
In 1967 the [Western Kentucky University] golf team, which had no practice course, was invited to use the facilities at the Bowling Green Country Club. Then it was discovered that the team might have a black member. The Country Club was not integrated, and the invitation came under question. Dr. Minton conferred with President Thompson and reported to the Athletic Committee "that there is no question as to how this institution stands as far as signing any agreement or any commitment that would in any way infringe upon a player's rights because of his race or color. The University would in no way approve this." The golf team commuted to Mammoth Park or used the nine-hole Bowling Green municipal course for its practice site.
Western Kentucky University by Lowell H. Harrison, p. 196.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your "buddy" (sarcasm!) Dad29 recently opined on this subject, citing this link.

althouse.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-rand-paul-really-said-about-civil.html


Dad29's opinion (see it for yourself, or not)...I have NO idea what he is driving at, to be honest.

illusory tenant said...

Rand Paul's skepticism of federal power over private property isn't really all that remarkable -- in the abstract. As a matter of political theory it's a legitimate grounds for discussion, starting with John Locke's notion of "natural" property rights arising from transforming the soil (or building a lunch counter, in Rand Paul's example, which is what makes his commentary almost painfully idiotic and naive in the historical context).

This is the first "legitimate" Tea Party candidate, apparently. It remains to be seen whether he's up to even campaigning for the Senate, let alone occupying it. He's not off to a brilliant start.

John Foust said...

What is Dad29 saying? I think he's saying 1) All those Southern racists were not following the Golden Rule much less his non-sectarian, universal and easily proven and historically uncontested Natural Law; 2) and they were probably infernal Baptists and not good Catholics like him anyways; and 3) error-ridden speech would be illegal like any other moral imperative if Dad29 ran the zoo, no doubt at the point of his (Ayn) Randian gun; and 4) Buy More Ammo! Wolverines! Fondle Yer Gunzz!

Rachel's no dummy. The Libertarian position on property rights has been well-known for forty years. It's a good question that will make viewers think, perhaps one with better legs than any probing question about drugs, selling the public roads, private protection or adulterated food. For Rand Paul, it would be a punishable violation of consistency to suggest that a restaurant owner couldn't refuse someone for any reason.

What strikes me is that this a big moment where straight Libertarian thought was tested directly and pointedly in the mass media. Why didn't it happen as dramatically when Ron Paul was running for President? I think Ron has more polish. He's been doing it since Rand had tassles on his handlebars.

illusory tenant said...

I think Rachel pretty much nailed it last night.

John Foust said...

The tuning fork, you mean?

Clutch said...

As a matter of political theory it's a legitimate grounds for discussion, starting with John Locke's notion of "natural" property rights arising from transforming the soil

Of course, Locke's idea was explicitly premised on the assumption that one's improvements/use of such natural resources would leave "enough and as good" resources behind for everyone else -- at best a contestable idealization even in Locke's day, and a palpably false antecedent for practically every case today. (That is, soil, water, air, airwaves, fish or lunch counters...)

...which is what makes his commentary almost painfully idiotic and naive in the historical context.

Us libertarians laugh at your historical context book-learning! If it ain't in my Ayn Rand novels (uh, hey, don't ask me why my copies naturally fall open to the obligatory rape scenes), or if somebody who read that Hayek genius never told me about it, then it must be pointless elite leftist bafflegab!

John Foust said...

uh, hey, don't ask me why my copies naturally fall open to the obligatory rape scenes

That's because you were using your engraved invitations as bookmarks.

Clutch said...

Something remarkable:

"free speech" is limited to only that which is not clearly erroneous

The meta-meta-irony is almost poetic.

John Foust said...

That Dad29, he's a stitch.

Dan said...

So, what is the point of your post?
You admit that Paul had a point about private property. And I assume that the Bowling Green Country Club has member of different races now. So, what is your point other than trying to make a cheap political point by making a fool of yourself?