If I Were Rand Paul
June 2nd 2010 20:36
Would I have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Yes!
In general, the government should protect the rights of the individual as its foremost concern, but not its sole concern. Decisions should also be left to the states and local communities in most instances, but not all. The case of the Jim Crow Laws, which did not just promote segregation, but made segregation mandatory, was a clear instance where the Federal government needed to get involved in statesÂ’ behavior. When a law so clearly violates the liberty of man, the Federal government must take action. This is not hypocritical, as pragmatic libertarians (aka right-wing liberals/ free-market liberals/ classical liberals/ intelligent conservatives) are not anti-government.
Where I take issue is not with the fact that the Federal government took action. Instead, I take issue with the magnitude of this action. The desired result of ending widespread segregation could have likely been accomplished in a superior manner, while also giving greater respect to individual liberty.
With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation changed from mandated to illegal. Free association was never tried. Economic theory tells us that free association would have likely worked to minimize, and probably eliminate, segregation. It is not a wise business move to refuse service to a large group of people. Also, as the values of the customers became more pro-African American, businesses would lose potential non-African American customers who refused to patron an establishment that segregated. Over time, racist restaurant owners, for example, would be faced with the decision to desegregate or go out of business. Either way, racists lose.
This is not just a matter of theory. The case of Southern streetcars hints that free association may have eliminated segregation without infringing on the individual rights of those who own restaurants or other public places. These streetcars were forced by law to have blacks ride in a different car than whites, rather than their previous means of discrimination: smoking and non-smoking cars. This meant the company had to drive around with excess capacity in some of their cars, leading to a loss of money. In addition, many blacks and whites refused to ride on streetcars when the law was first established. These companies pushed for the removal of the Jim Crow Laws, but the state governments increased pressure on the streetcar owners to segregate based on race.
Large businesses with branches in both the North and South are another example. Branches in the North were losing money due to boycotts against their segregating Southern branches. These businesses fought for the end of the Jim Crow Laws so that they could stop segregating and make more money. Competitive markets do work to bring about positive changes.
The most convincing counterargument is that of the collective action problem. In other words, it may have been the case that many restaurants would want to desegregate after the Jim Crow laws were removed. However, no one wanted to be the first person to make that move (for fear of violence against them, loss of business in the short-run, etc.). Since free association was never tried, we may never know if there was a collective action problem.
What if the Jim Crow Laws were removed and segregation remained in place? This is the most relevant question. If the problem was one of needing a First Mover, then I believe the answer most in line with pragmatic libertarianism would be to have then moved to banning segregation, as was done in the Civil Rights Act. This is a clear example where government action could bring about a beneficial change for society that was not easily done through private actions. However, if the problem was that the vast majority of citizens in the South were actually racist and it would have been the result of competitive markets to produce segregation, then the problem becomes much trickier. This, however, was probably not the case in the South during 1964, as the previous examples of the streetcars and national businesses, amongst other evidence, suggests. Thus, I do not find this hypothetical worth examining.
In conclusion, I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have issues with the move from mandatory segregation to banning segregation, without trying the middle ground of free association. This more cautious approach would have been most consistent with individual liberty, while still striking a fatal blow to widespread segregation. Nonetheless, the Civil Rights Act was both a dramatic improvement on the institutionalized racism of the Jim Crow Laws, as well as a potentially necessary infringement upon individual rights, as justified by the collective action problem.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
In general, the government should protect the rights of the individual as its foremost concern, but not its sole concern. Decisions should also be left to the states and local communities in most instances, but not all. The case of the Jim Crow Laws, which did not just promote segregation, but made segregation mandatory, was a clear instance where the Federal government needed to get involved in statesÂ’ behavior. When a law so clearly violates the liberty of man, the Federal government must take action. This is not hypocritical, as pragmatic libertarians (aka right-wing liberals/ free-market liberals/ classical liberals/ intelligent conservatives) are not anti-government.
Where I take issue is not with the fact that the Federal government took action. Instead, I take issue with the magnitude of this action. The desired result of ending widespread segregation could have likely been accomplished in a superior manner, while also giving greater respect to individual liberty.
With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation changed from mandated to illegal. Free association was never tried. Economic theory tells us that free association would have likely worked to minimize, and probably eliminate, segregation. It is not a wise business move to refuse service to a large group of people. Also, as the values of the customers became more pro-African American, businesses would lose potential non-African American customers who refused to patron an establishment that segregated. Over time, racist restaurant owners, for example, would be faced with the decision to desegregate or go out of business. Either way, racists lose.
This is not just a matter of theory. The case of Southern streetcars hints that free association may have eliminated segregation without infringing on the individual rights of those who own restaurants or other public places. These streetcars were forced by law to have blacks ride in a different car than whites, rather than their previous means of discrimination: smoking and non-smoking cars. This meant the company had to drive around with excess capacity in some of their cars, leading to a loss of money. In addition, many blacks and whites refused to ride on streetcars when the law was first established. These companies pushed for the removal of the Jim Crow Laws, but the state governments increased pressure on the streetcar owners to segregate based on race.
Large businesses with branches in both the North and South are another example. Branches in the North were losing money due to boycotts against their segregating Southern branches. These businesses fought for the end of the Jim Crow Laws so that they could stop segregating and make more money. Competitive markets do work to bring about positive changes.
The most convincing counterargument is that of the collective action problem. In other words, it may have been the case that many restaurants would want to desegregate after the Jim Crow laws were removed. However, no one wanted to be the first person to make that move (for fear of violence against them, loss of business in the short-run, etc.). Since free association was never tried, we may never know if there was a collective action problem.
What if the Jim Crow Laws were removed and segregation remained in place? This is the most relevant question. If the problem was one of needing a First Mover, then I believe the answer most in line with pragmatic libertarianism would be to have then moved to banning segregation, as was done in the Civil Rights Act. This is a clear example where government action could bring about a beneficial change for society that was not easily done through private actions. However, if the problem was that the vast majority of citizens in the South were actually racist and it would have been the result of competitive markets to produce segregation, then the problem becomes much trickier. This, however, was probably not the case in the South during 1964, as the previous examples of the streetcars and national businesses, amongst other evidence, suggests. Thus, I do not find this hypothetical worth examining.
In conclusion, I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I have issues with the move from mandatory segregation to banning segregation, without trying the middle ground of free association. This more cautious approach would have been most consistent with individual liberty, while still striking a fatal blow to widespread segregation. Nonetheless, the Civil Rights Act was both a dramatic improvement on the institutionalized racism of the Jim Crow Laws, as well as a potentially necessary infringement upon individual rights, as justified by the collective action problem.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
| 96 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More
Comment by Dr. Liberty
on The Myth of Buy Local
Borderless World
Political Craft
MLB Analyst
First off, your comment completely misses the point of the part you quote. I was specifically speaking of the case in which a foreign product was of better quality. In that case, Buy Local policies would force a person to settle for an inferior product.
Second, if foreign products are so undesirable, then why do so many people buy them? Are Honda, Samsung, Sony, etc. really inferior products?
I don't think I am as ignorant as you claim me to be. You really must explain what is so great about "putting money back into the local economy." Prosperity comes not from the amount of money a community has, but rather from the value of the goods possessed by the members of the community. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.
Foreign businesses actually come in and bring more and/or better jobs, while providing better products/services than the incumbent company they replaced (in general).
I am against tax breaks for companies to come into town, so we can agree on that one.
By the way, I certainly hope that you read past the second paragraph of the post.