Why Rand Paul Is Wrong

Republican Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul, who has argued against a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination in private businesses that serve the public, is wrong in his assumptions.

Setting aside the issue of common human decency, the argument itself--that private businesses not supported by public dollars can choose their customers--doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Say Rand Paul decides to quit doctoring and start up a bait shop. Under his theory, he has the perfect right to ban African Americans, gay fishermen, midgets and mimes from his shop, because his business is not supported by public funds. But wait! How are his customers going to get to his bait shop? Probably via public roads, which are constructed and maintained using public funds. Maybe his customers could fly in on private planes. No, that involves using public airspace, owned by the public and regulated by the Federal government, and it involves licensing of the pilots, which is controlled by the FAA. I seem to recall that there's at least one private pilot's license in the Paul family, so the Pauls must not object to that form of regulation.

How is Dr. Paul going to get out the news about his bait shop? Not by radio or TV, both of which are controlled by the FCC, a publicly funded agency sworn to protect the public airwaves. Until Paul's customers learn to levitate and read his mind, operating his business without public support or funding is going to be pretty hard.

I think most of us have a libertarian streak--I know I do--but we decided as a species millennia ago to live in some form of social structure. It civilizes us, it gives us mutual support and protection, and when it works properly, it serves to protect the weak against the strong. To decide that a private person has the right to ban another human being from public accommodations severely restricts the right of the barred individual to function in the most basic way: the ability to grab a bite to eat at lunchtime; the ability to get on a bus and travel to another city or within his own city; the ability to go into an emergency room and seek treatment; the ability to use a restroom, for pity's sake.

Laws protect us from the most base instincts of human nature, and restrict the power of one person or group to oppress or harm another. While Rand Paul and his father Ron are right to challenge the assumptions that we make about government, and offer an important reminder that we need to be careful about investing too much power in any one entity, they fall short in recognizing the role of society--and government as a representative of that society--in defining and enforcing rules that protect human rights and dignity for us all. Without that line drawn to protect us against the cruelty and greed inherent in human nature, libertarianism becomes an exercise in self-indulgence, and the most extreme exercise of libertarianism potentially threatens us all.