Email
Print
SyndicateA Minority of One – Again
By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, May 25, 2010
By Robert Ringer
Wouldn’t you know it? I thought I had the minority-of-one issue behind me, and along comes Rand Paul. Of course, I was pleased to find that I really wasn’t a minority of one for expressing my views on unionization, but today’s article will be far more difficult for even the most ardent liberty advocate to swallow.
When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Rand Paul if he believed that a private business should have the right to refuse to serve African-Americans, he correctly answered, “Yes.” But he went on to say, “I’m not in favor of discrimination of any form.”
To a person who has progressive pudding jammed between his ears, Rand Paul’s one-word answer and his follow-up comment contradict one another. You see, a pudding-filled brain cavity makes life simple. If someone believes a business owner has a right to refuse service to an African-American, that means he (the person who harbors such a belief) favors discrimination.
For the person addicted to a life of nonstop sports, junk TV, and Outback Steakhouse, there is little time to intellectualize a serious issue like this. After all, that would require him to reject knee-jerk statements and think through the moral ramifications of the issue.
The real problem is that Maddow asked Paul the wrong question. It was what is commonly referred to as a loaded question. If you’re going to be a serious supporter of liberty, you cannot allow yourself to be intimidated into answering loaded questions – i.e., questions based on a false premise or an implied false premise.
Here, the false premise was implied: If a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone, it automatically follows that that someone would be an African-American. It is, of course, an absurd assumption.
What if the owner of the business is an African-American? Like a white owner, a black owner has a right to do whatever he wishes with his business. As I said in my article about the right to fire someone for attempting to unionize a business, the reason he possesses such a right is that it’s his business. The same is true when it comes to deciding whom he does and does not wish to service.
Skin color is irrelevant to those who believe in liberty. But to the far left, the so-called race card is like oxygen. For decades, progressives have suffered withdrawal symptoms as race has become less and less of an issue in the U.S. (Ironically, it is a brown man in the White House who has managed to rekindle racial tensions in America through his shameful, nonstop, racially charged rhetoric.)
If you want to discuss the subject of black progress in America, fine. We have millions of blacks who are doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, professors, military officers, politicians – even the president of the United States is African-American! So let’s all give ourselves – both whites and blacks – a big pat on the back for living in a post-racial era. End of discussion on that topic.
But if you want to discuss another topic – the sanctity of private property – I repeat what I said about unionization. If one believes in the concept of private property – which all sane people of goodwill do – he is obliged to concede that an owner has a right to do anything he wishes with his own property.
As Thomas Sowell has so often pointed out, if an employer refuses to hire or serve people purely on a discriminatory basis, he does so at his own peril, because the marketplace will punish him. For example, speaking for myself, I would never give my business to a company or restaurant that refused to serve people of any specific race or ethnicity, and I think I can safely say that I’m in the majority on that one.
Thus, the free market would sort things out by penalizing the company that practiced discrimination. Legislating morals does not work. What is there about this self-evident truth that the progressive does not understand?
As Sowell has written about for years, blacks made greater progress in escaping poverty before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than after it was passed. In a 2003 article in Jewish World Review, Sowell stated that more blacks rose into professional ranks in the five years preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act than in the five years after its passage. What a stunning indictment on government social engineering!
While you’ve got me worked up, I’ll add one other thing that caused me a bit of concern when Rand Paul was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. After trying to make Paul look bad on the issue of a business owner’s right not to serve blacks, Stephanopoulos moved in for the kill and asked him if he would repeal the minimum wage.
Paul fumbled around a bit and tried to explain how a higher a minimum wage causes unemployment. Of course, everything he said was correct, but, even so, his answer should have been a resounding, “Yes!”
I have great empathy for Rand Paul in this situation, because I know how difficult it can be when you’re put on the spot on national television. But my concern is that too many conservatives and libertarian-centered conservatives are still allowing the left to intimidate them into backing off their true beliefs.
This is what concerns me if Republicans do actually take control of the House and Senate in 2010. What the tea parties signify more than anything else is that half or more of Americans are finally ready to hear the truth. And if Republicans are still not ready to give it to them, with boldness and without fear, they will be reviled long after our final liberties are lost.
Let me simplify things with my favorite litmus-test question: “Do you believe that Barack Obama is a radical?”
Wrong answer: “Well, I think he’s surrounded himself with a lot of people who are radical.”
Right answer: “Yes!”
But I digress. The question is, am I a minority of one for believing that a business owner has a natural right to refuse service to whomever he pleases?
I hope not. I’d especially love to hear from libertarian-centered conservative African-Americans. After all, Walter Williams, Herman Cain, Star Parker, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Alan Keyes, et al seem like pretty smart people to me, and I’ll bet you can guess where they stand on this issue.
Bottom line: This is not a race issue; it’s a liberty issue. Libertarian-centered conservatism and racism are mutually exclusive beliefs.
Syndication:
Please feel free to copy and share this article with your readers. We encourage you to reprint our articles to supplement your own content and drive more traffic to your site – at no charge. The only requirement is that you include the following at the end of each article:
Copyright © 2010 Tortoise Press, Inc.
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. Ringer has appeared on numerous national talk shows and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron’s, and The New York Times. To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World, visit www.RobertRinger.com
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on “A Minority of One – Again”, please login below:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
16 Responses to “A Minority of One – Again”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
Many decades ago when I was a young man, businesses frequently posted signs, to wit: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” I don’t recall when those signs disappeared, but the concept is still 100% correct. If someone wants to raise the race-card, that’s their problem. It has no effect on the validity of the concept. The concept remains unchanged. I ran my own business for 35 years and did, in fact, tell some folks I thought they’d be better off working with someone else. Had I not been able to do so, both they and I would have been unhappy with the resultant relationship. What part of plain common sense do the so-called progressives just not understand?
Libertarian Issues are never easy – Should you have the right? A Resounding YES. Should you exercize that right? That is up to you.
Gun Control – It is our right to keep and bear arms -cuaranteed by the Biil of Rights. The right question is how do we punish people who commit manslaughter or murder.
Drug Control – Should Drugs be decriminalized? Absolutely! Should they be used for getting high? That is up to the user? How do we punish the addict? How do we punish the criminal who commits crime while under the influence?
What about the FDA and drug approvals? Frankly they are just an adjuducating body who decide whether or not an individual can sue if a drug made by someone else causes harm.
Should abortion be legal? Do we want the Government legislating any part of our healthcare?
All are hard questions. Our “progressive” “parental” government takes it as their responsibility and their power to control the people. It is not. And we must Remind them of this!
Thanks for shouting from the 1 position. PLEASE keep bringing up the debates! I will keep it up from here.
As usual – you are SO correct!
One of our neighbors came over yesterday evening and we had a long discussion on this subject – all of us agreeing that we SHOULD be able to refuse service to anyone we please – with or without a reason that would be acceptable to another person.
I’m sorry that Rand Paul got himself into that discussion, and I hope it doesn’t hurt him. But you never know. Perhaps it will help, because I don’t think you’re a minority.
I think that most reasonable and thinking individuals believe that they should be able to do anything they want on or with their own property, as long as they don’t interfere with their neighbor’s right to do as he or she pleases.
But, I guess I’m a radical, because I think we also have a right to dislike anyone we choose – as long as we don’t attempt to harm them in any way. In other words – we have a right to think our own thoughts without permission or approval from any other person.
The concept of discrimination is an interesting one. We are told that we should be “discriminating” consumers, yet we are told we should NOT discriminate. Back to the business owner who decides not to hire someone, for whatever reason. That is his right, yet he might have to defend that right in court is the person being “discriminated” against is in a “special” category that is afforded “special” protection.
What about the employee who doesn’t want to work for someone. Isn’t he also discriminating against the employer? Why is one “wrong” yet the other is “right”?
So many problems in life can be solved by allowing for true private property rights and the unlimited right to contract.
Do you mean to tell me that if I own and run a private hospital that I can staff it with KKK, dress employees in hooded uniforms and refuse to admit a dying black patient? Or, if I own and run a restaurant, then I can hang up signs above the restroom that read “Whites Only”.
How about if I allow blacks in my place of business, but I charge them double—sort of like a hate surcharge.
Let me bottom line this issue: Individualism, private property, and the freedom to choose are not absolute in a civilized society. Freedom must have checks and balances that are done within the framework of reasonable laws. The law of non-aggression is a perfect example: Nobody should be free to use unchecked aggression against somebody else. Likewise, HATE, which history has shown time and time again, cannot be left unchecked unless you want violence.
Yes, people have the right to hate somebody else because of their skin color; however, that right must be regulated and kept in check if we intend to live in a civilized society.
The government forcibly integrating the races or using affirmative action of any kind is wrong, but, on the other hand, willful exclusion—for any reason that involves hate and/or racial superiority— is also wrong.
Having said the above, there may be some exceptions: If somebody can demonstrate absence of hate/malice/racial superiority in their motive, then an all white or an all black country club, business or group would be fine in my opinion.
This issue is complex, and oversimplifying it does it a disservice. Ditto with the issue of unions. In the end, oversimplification works poorly for the simpleminded.
Great comment in the 12th paragraph “Thus the free market would sort things out…” If only the government would get out of the way more often, things would more than likely work themelves out.
One comment about the 9th paragraph where it states “….even the President of the United States is African American!” If I hired Barack Obama he would be asked to fill out a form as to what race he is. The EEOC requires that we report this on all employees. His check mark would go by “Two or more races”. We would not list him as Black or African American because the EEOC (a federal agency) does not allow it. And in addition we are prohibited from asking him what are his two or more races.
Barack Obama’s mother was white so he is at least half white and many would say that he could be less than half black because of his father’s ancestry. So because of what we as employers are required to report or face stiff penalties, I cannot call Barack Obama our first African American president. He is our first “Two or more races” president.
As a member of the (Minority of one) coalition I’d say Rand Paul is the biggest political candidate since… Ron Paul. I’ve never been so focused as now on the extent that rational debate is so threatening to the demopublicans. Is it going to be too late if the sl”h”eeping public comes around finally this November? These media hosts are such agenda-driven buffoons I rarely will watch tv these days. There will be potential for optimism to the extent that the internet remains open to discussion such as this one.
As usual, I largely agree with you. However, there are several points that need to be made.
Racism won’t stop until the government goes color-blind. That means NO questions about race on any forms, EVER. We have freedom of association guaranteed by the Constitution. If we choose to refuse to associate with people of different skin color, we are perfectly within our rights. Affirmative action hurts blacks because people think they got there because of affirmative action rather than merit. Forced busing caused a lot of race hatred; nobody liked it, including blacks.
You can tell people that a person who adopted trans-racially, twice (and breastfed them both, by the way), said these things. Adoption is a voluntary act. Our adopting broke down more race barriers than any government action ever will. Our example also resulted in other people of different shades being accepted into the family.
That said…
ALL legislation legislates morality. That’s what laws do. You’re answering the wrong question. The right question is, which morality is it constitutional for the government to legislate? The answer to that may be difficult to define, but the non-aggression principle is a good start. Murder, rape, arson, assault, robbery, are all forms of aggression. As I said, we are material beings, so we have the right to property lawfully acquired. Government violates our right to life when it plunders us through taxes to give the money to strangers. Smoking in the presence of an unconsenting person is aggression. That’s why a business owner doesn’t have the right to give people permission to smoke on his premises, even though he has property rights. Property rights don’t give him the right to use a gun he owns to shoot someone, either. Likewise, he doesn’t have the right to give other people permission to aggress on his property. Our bodies are our property in a sense. If a person makes his business open to the public, he has the duty to safeguard the people who accept his invitation. Using drugs or practicing other vices harms family members, and society in general. If we use responsive force, it is best directed against people who sell drugs, because they are enslaving others. We should throw the book at those people. Abortion is not health care. It’s aggression against both the unborn and their mothers. Consent under coercion is not consent. Most mothers are being coerced or defrauded. It is proper for the government to outlaw abortion under the non-aggression principle.
I strongly support separation of medicine and state. Let a private group designed on the principle of Underwriters Laboratory rate pharmaceuticals and health care products. The government should have no say in what is marketed as long as it is not directly and obviously harmful (poisonous, in other words). But abortion is not health care. It is proper for government to prohibit it because it is aggression.
Obama isn’t African-American. It’s not even clear if he is a citizen. He may not be. He’s 1/2 Caucasian, 7/16 Arabic, and only 1/16 African. He is mixed race, nothing more. We need to stop branding people “black” because they have a drop of black blood in their background. Obama’s claim to be African-American is just one of his many frauds.
My husband divides actions into five categories. There are actions that need to be prohibited (by government), actions that need to be mandated, actions that need to be discouraged, actions that need to be encouraged, and actions that are morally neutral and should be permitted without comment. Murder, rape, abortion, arson, robbery, slavery, trafficking in vices, assault, and other such crimes of aggression and fraud, need to be prohibited. Racism needs to be discouraged, but it is not clear that a government that is truly color blind can discourage it in any way. Rather, society should discourage it. We as individuals can discourage it by refusing to do business with people who discriminate and by voluntarily accepting associations with people of other shades of skin. Since society is made up of individuals, much can be done by us, and the tide can be turned.
I usually pretty much agree with you but this time
I want to disagree with you on one ‘major’ Point.
I was born in Nebraska–I am an American.
Obama was born in Hawaii from what I undrestand
that makes him an American. I am over 60 and have
ever only known one “African American” and he was
born in Africa, came to America via England and he
sounded like a Brit. Nice guy and a real Africian-American who happened to be caucasion. If someone is
born in America they are American. My ancestors are
Indian, Irish, English, German. That makes me a
“mess”. I do not go around claiming to be from 3 other countries. I just remind people occassionaly some of my ancestors were here when they got off the boat. Drop the crap about Black is from Africa cause it ain’t necessarily so.
Rose
Reality seeker…I don’t know what Ringer means to tell you, but I will tell you: yes. Freedom of association is an absolute (including who you do business with) – unless you are a slave. That said, entrepreneurialism, buidling a business is a tough gig; the vast majority of attempted enterprises fail. It is highly improbable that anyone attempting to implement your wild-eyed scenarios could be successful…but, if it turned out there was an unserved niche wide enough for your kooks to to business in, so be it – none of your business and none of mine (or anyone else’s).
Of course a business owner does (or should have) the right to refuse to do business with anyone. There are LOTS of good reasons to decline a business relationship with someone. Offhand, I can’t think of a sane reason to refuse based on race. You are correct that the free market quickly would doom a business who’s owner unreasonably refuses to enter into transactions or relationships. Someone may not be qualified to do business with a company though because they’re impossible to please, they’re unruly and disrupt others, aren’t dressed appropriately, live too far away to service appropriately, etc. It’s impossible for the Government to legislate good decision making in any realm of life.
PatGoltz:
I enjoyed reading your well balanced comments.
On the issue of smoking within a private business: In some cases, it is not out of line with the law of non-aggression if a private business owner allows smoking. A smoking club is a good example. In this case—and I think you’d agree– individuals should have the freedom to choose. If we don’t like smoking, then we can go visit an oxygen bar.
I will repeat myself, some of these issues are not simple, straight forward, black and white issues. These issues are more subtle, complex issues that go far beyond ordinary common sense. In order to navigate these issues, one must acquire both common and uncommon sense. Exclaiming that a business owner has the natural right to do whatever to whomever as long as it’s his business might sound appealing to those with a high school mentality who have yet to be weaned off of milk and unto solid food—yes, it might appeal to the immature mind— but to those who have been exposed to great thinkers, it is quite laughable when somebody attempts to ratiocinate natural rights into absolute terms .
“Some roads are so treacherous that traveling on them requires both common and uncommon sense.” ……F.A. Hayek.
Since Obama seems to want government to run every aspects of our lives, I thought I’d relate the “government experience” I had today, that shows how disastrously government can run things. I’ve been on call for jury duty all week. Starting last Friday, I’ve had to phone the courthouse everyday to listen to a recording that would tell me if my jury group would actually have to show up at the courthouse that day. Luckily today the recording said my jury service was finished, and I was pleased I never had to actually drive to the courthouse. (I’ve served on two juries already, and the novelty wore off the first time.) But on the same recording were named other bunches of jury groups who WILL have to show up at the courthouse. The recording started out saying it was information for today’s date, “May 27″ (remember that date). The message went on to say “Jury group #’s such-and-such will have to report to the courthouse on Monday, May 24. And group #’s such-and-such will have to report to the courthouse on Tuesday, May 25.” Yes, this is part of a May 27th message! Either those jurors all have time machines, or government really does run things disastrously.
Reality seeker…instead of reiterating categories, and your implied mastery of them, why don’t you explicate the ‘subtleties and complexities that go far beyond ordinary common sense’?
While you’re at it, please tell me when, or where, common sense has ever been ordinary or common.
Instead of a Hayekian soundbite, maybe you should actually read him, and especially within the context of some of the other prominent Austrians (Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, many more…). See if you can find in them what you’re propounding here.
Nobody here said ‘a business owner has the right to do whatever to whomever’. Such inaccurate paraphrasing of what is right here, in the record for all to see, telegraphs some heavy emotional/psychological impediments to the common sense you mention. It could also be characterized as fraud – a species of aggression. Think about it.
Reunion,
You’re no dummy. I understand your idealistic view of how the world according to Libertarianism, Classical Liberalism and Austrian Economics should work; However, when the rubber hits the road in the real world where endogamy, exogamous groups, caste systems, and race based hate are left unregulated to grow freely into an inveterate family tradition, then less freedom and more hate and racial superiority will inevitably result.
Hate, left unchecked and unregulated, will grow and divide entire countries. Personally, after living with different peoples and races all around the world, I can report from first hand experience that hate is as common as love. Hate is ubiquitous. Hate is flourishing, and it still divides entire countries. Don’t underestimate the power of hate to disguise itself or its ability to kill freedom.
“All that is needed for evil to flourish, is good people to do nothing.” Ronald Reagan…..
Reality seeker…..
By “idealistic” I take it you mean unrealistic? And you would know this how, exactly? You are awfully glib in your dismissal of a large number of very intelligent, honorable people (all those many contributors to the discoveries of classical liberalism/libertarianism and Austrian econ), not to mention the validations of those discoveries in the historical record right up to present day.
How do you reconcile your notion of “regulating hate”, as you refer to discrimination, or the natural desire (and inalienable right) people have to freely associate, and “freedom”?
Funny how both of us live in the world, but somehow you’re in the “real” one, and I’m apparently not.
In arguing from (weak) authority, basis your travels, you once again telegraph your emotional embrace and understanding of ‘the world’ {but, even if your claimed authority stemmed from your being secretary general of the U.N., or something, it would still be a logical fallacy).
I have no problem with heart, even soppy sentimental heart – get that way myself sometimes – but a balancing intellect is necessary. If all intellect and no heart (emotion) is sociopathic, what is the opposite, if not sociopathic as well? Or, if emotionally devoid intellect is sociopathically destructive, how can intellectually devoid emotion fail to be destructive as well, however we might label it? It is just this symbiotic teeter-tottering that is the fulcrum of downward displacement that is evident all around us.
Oh, another interesting choice of quotes. You have it out of Reagan’s mouth, but it is by way of a paraphrased Edmund Burke – who was an anarchist (at least until he decided better to go along and get along) – and as unlikely to be amenable to your assertions as Hayek would have been.
Your use of Reagan, who I voted for, young emotional pup that I was, and who is the daddy of exploding debt (if it hadn’t been him, it would have been someone else…) and moving the fiat currency along to its intrinsic value ($0.00), reminds me of the Sandinistas (all that Iran-contra nonsense)…which provides a useful, I think, play on the word: Solutionistas.
Solutionistas, believing truth to be invented, and therefore utterly malleable, rather than discovered and obdurately immalleable – as it is – thrash about LEGISLATING reality and truth, rather than living in concordance. Some of the socios on either end of their teetering plank believe their inventions, many of them merely pretend to, but the aspect that all solutionistas have in common, besides hubris, is the utter inability to ever arrive at solution. Which is an example of why I say that a correct, unifying ‘theory of everything’ will need to figure out how to quantify irony…..
All told, seven questions I’ve posed to you, so far…do you intend to answer?