Reply #94: All right, let's jump in, headfirst, and see what happens.

[Decoy of Fenris]

The inherent right of a business to serve or decline service to anyone is something I unconditionally support. Having been kicked out of a few places of business (for one reason or another...), I can say that those businesses not only should have that right, but patently -need- that right. It is a method of regulating business and regulating trade, oftentimes ensuring some (admittedly arbitrary) set of conditions or needs and allowing the business to continue to function smoothly, without an individual or a group of individuals disrupting the normal flow of business.

Take DU, for instance. We (I say "we" hesitantly at the moment, given the precarious nature of this post) have the right to turn away those who would actively disrupt the community here, for the betterment of the forum (Business?) as a whole. Likewise, a private business owner should be able to retain the right to refuse to serve... say... a rowdy group of folk who, day in and day out, simply sit outside the front of the business, smoking, only ever coming in to buy a stick of gum. If that group of folk is actively hindering the activities and progression of the business day for the private business, that business owner should have the right to ask them to disperse.

With that said, I think that the distinction between my own views and those of Paul must be made crystalline-clear; this is not something that should be universal, based on completely arbitrary, on-the-spot decisions, biased against something that a person cannot change about themselves. Reserving the right to refuse service should not be based on sexual orientation, skin color, or sex, as these would be discriminatory and violate the basic principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I think that above all, Paul is, in this instance, defending the unconditional right of a private business to regulate it's own trade. This statement, in and of itself, I do not believe is racist. Unless my poli-sci knowledge is incorrect, Paul is simply defending one of the more base of his beliefs against government control, being that a private business should never be forced by the government into doing anything. Sort of... What is the phrase... Laissez faire? (Forgive my spelling.)

Ultimately, Paul is not making the statement "I hate blacks, hurp durp!" or "I hate brown folk, hurp durp!", but instead is exposing, up-front and forthrightly, his belief in a separated private business and it's associated rights from the governmental control that Libertarians tend to avoid. In this statement, I think I would dare to say that I do not believe he is being racist, but defending his viewpoints, and he happened to step on a fairly loaded question, which brings me to my next point.

If one were to analyze the interview and in particular, the question being brought up by Maddow, I think that one could find that this was a loaded land-mine of a question. Essentially, a cursory analysis of Paul's viewpoints would find that private business control is a staple of Paul's platform. If the question that Maddow asked were to be "fair" (I know, the world isn't fair), I believe it would have been phrased as "Do you think that a private business has the right to refuse service to any person for any reason?" Instead, the phrasing (and specific emphasis on "black people") leads what could be a fairly benign question into a true land-mine; Paul has only three choices at that point.

A.) Obfuscate or evade
B.) Answer truthfully (what I believe he did)
C.) Answer falsely, going against his beliefs.

While I can't say that, in the form given, I agree with what Paul said, I think that he walked into a rather nasty bear trap here, and I believe that instead of a two-sentence soundbite, we should examine the situation at hand. Statements such as this...

"Yes, he want on to say more after he said, 'Yes.'

But...WTF...nothing explains his position that it is OK for a business to refused to serve black people except the fact that he is a racist?"

... eliminate meaningful dialog about an option, and only lead to preconceived notions. While I cannot say that I agree unconditionally with Paul given the nature of the question he answered, I think he deserves at least a smidge of "benefit of the doubt", at least for now.


Whew. Thanks for sticking with me, folk. I'll be happy to clarify any points of contention. Just give me some time to get my coffee and vodka first. :P