We get to see the intellectual dishonesty again from the liberal left when Rand Paul, like a pussy, was unable to tell her straight that, "I do think that people have a right to discriminate". The lefties are all complaining now. Saying, "oh look Rand is a racist". Am I surprised to see the word "racist" would again? No, I hear that word used every day from the left regarding almost every issue, this is part of the reason why I never watch or read news. As I explained before the word "racist" is a word used to silence opposition, it is the word of a person who fails at intelligent arguments, someone who needs a way to silent his opponents. But I am not afraid. Call me "racist" as much as you want. Back in the 1600's the few who were against religion were called "heretics", another word to silence opposition. But there were few who were not afraid to be called heretics. Likewise, I myself am not afraid to be called a racist or a sexist or whatever other word the left uses every day to silence their opponents. Call me as much as you like. Because the truth does not care who speaks it, it does not care if a racist says it or not. The truth is independent from evil. And I will continue to speak the truth as much as I can and let others call me whatever words they please. Because I am a free thinker, I am capable of thought without it being enslaved to religion, or society or social pressures. The same cannot be said about most people.
Yes, I oppose the Civil Rights Act. And for a typical liberal that translates into, "oh my God, he is a racist and he wants to segregate blacks". The simple reason why I oppose the Civil Rights Act is because I believe in freedom and in free speech. Part of freedom and free speech is that we do not take it away from people who we despise, our enemies. We fight to defend freedom and free speech of even the most hated of all people. I consider this to be one of the great virtues that we should strive towards. The Civil Rights Act makes it illegal for private citizens to discriminate against people for whatever reason. That is a violation of the freedom of the people, even if discrimination is morally wrong.
A member from the KKK can choose to discriminate against those that he pleases. He can hang up a sign on his own house that says, "black people not allowed". Why should it be illegal for him to do that? He is not harming any black person. He is not interfering with the life of any black person. He simply wishes to disassociate himself entirely from black people. Besides it is his house. He chooses who he wants to invite and who he does not want to invite. Now consider the same situation with a restaurant. Why should it be illegal for a KKK racist to discriminate against black people or gay people or Jewish people or women or whatever other group of people it happens to be? It is his restaurant, like his own house, and he can set his own standards on what he wants. It is certainly morally wrong, but it is the freedom of the people to conduct themselves that way. He is not doing any harm to a black person, he rather disassociates with them entirely. So I do not understand how someone can argue that it should be illegal for people from the KKK to do that.
There is something important that needs to be understood about the ways black people were treated. The injustice that were done to black Americans was the result of laws! Do not forget that. Under Jim Crow laws blacks were segregated against. It were laws that have enforced blacks to be separated to whites, or to go to different bathrooms, or to sit on back of buses. It was the government that discriminated against black Americans. Sure there were private individuals that have discriminated against blacks, they still exist today, but the problems that blacks endured in the south was the result of the law discriminating against them. Compare black life in the north and the south, they had it much better in the north, racism did exist everywhere, but the problems that black went through were dominantly the result of laws against them. There were restaurants that served both black and white people before the Civil Rights Act. But restaurants were required to create a separation between blacks and whites because of the laws on segregation not by their own standards. So do not forget where the segregation came from. It came from the state.
I am certainly against discrimination of the law. Because I believe that all people are equal, equal in rights. I would have completely opposed the segregation laws, and I would have deeply distressed if I was alive at the time when they were passed. Indeed, if I am so bothered by Arizona's immigration law, the law that bothered me more than anything else every since Barack Obama was in office (I am not blaming this on him by the way), I can only imagine how much I would have been bothered by Jim Crow segregation. Thus, the law and the state cannot discriminate against anyone. State functions or entities that work for the state/city, like the police department or fire department or hospitals cannot discriminate. Roads which for the most part are owned by the government cannot discriminate. And so forth. But I will defend the right to be a racist and a discriminator of any individual against another individual. This is what freedom means, sometimes it implies evil, and we must be willing to put up with temporary evils.
I would have certainly supported the federal government to abolish segregation laws. But once segregation was abolished things should have progressed to their natural conclusion. We cannot legislate morality against discrimination or racism. Racism was already dying out in the US at that time, and if it would have progressed it would have honestly died out because the people would have eventually opposed it. When you go to most forums or most servers you will find that one of the rules that they have is a rule against racism. They are not required to have that as a rule on their forum or server, I do not think so, there are KKK forums after all. But most forums do make that their rule. Why? Because the members are against racism and so the forum is tempted to take on that rule. This all happens naturally with no imposition of legislature.
There is also an economic reason to oppose the Civil Rights Act. If a business owner discriminates against blacks then his competitor, that does not discriminate against blacks, would have an advantage over him. Racism and discrimination is a cost incurred on anyone who practices it. What is the capitalist creed? It says, "I do not care what color you are, whether you are black or white, or brown or yellow, there is one and only one color that I care about, and that is green". Any good capitalist would act to capitalize against his competitors who were racist. If there was no segregation imposed then the good capitalists would have a big advantage over the racist ones. The racist ones would be hurting themselves with the cost for racism. The Civil Rights Act, paradoxically, from an economic point of view, defends the racist businessman because the non-racist competitors cannot capitalize on non-racist practices. There were businesses that opposed the Jim Crow segregation laws because they realized that they would be losing money under those laws.
If the federal government was to do anything at all after abolishing segregation laws, I would say, it would be to give aid to black that suffered as a result of this injustice. That is the least that they can be done for them. From then and on it should have been up to the natural progress of society to get rid of racism. Racism is a social problem. But social problems are never ever solved through the use of violence. If you fail to see what I mean by violence, you can read this. Whenever something is banned the hidden implication is that violence would be used against those who fail to comply. Racism is certainly evil, but it does not give us an excuse to replace one evil for another evil (violence).
I am not one of few among many who takes a stance against the Civil Rights Act or much of the civil rights movement in general (much of what later came forth with the civil rights movement, just like with feminism, as I explained in my long series, is that the movement promoted equality of results, not equality of rights, it started with a desire to have a desire for equal rights, but later pushed for equality of results), there are many who would agree with me. My favorite living economist at present, Thomas Sowell, would be on my side. Thomas Sowell is an older economists, close to his 80's, who lived through the civil rights decisions, furthermore, he is a black American. The fact that we would be in agreement with me should give you a suspicion that perhaps these civil rights laws are not as sacred as you like to think. For many people it is not allowed to criticize various civil rights laws, because Science forbid, if you do so it must mean you are a racist or a sexist. Civil rights laws, just like everyone else, are not sacred, we can rationally study them.
There is a book that on this subject that I hope to read in the future, but I never read. I have been recommended this book by other people who said it was an excellent book. It is by Thomas Sowell, called Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? Here is an article I found by Thomas Sowell on segregation which would say a point of view that you probably do not often hear, here. I would like to also post an excellent YouTube video. It is a mirrored video by TheAmazingAtheist (original one was taken down), it is filled with a lot of angry, screaming, swearing, but it gets an very good point across, here