We hope this won't be necessary. Image from Wikimedia Commons.
The recent winner of the Kentucky Republican primary for the upcoming Senate elections, Rand Paul, the son of famous libertarian Ron Paul, has gone and put his foot in his mouth. To be fair, his meaning was somewhat lost in the shuffle. He was in an interview with Rachel Maddow, and he appeared to imply he was in favor of getting rid of the Civil Rights Act. He did go on to clarify what he meant, and he stated unequivocally he would not try to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
Rand Paul on ‘Rachel Maddow’
After he won the Republican Primary to run for United States Senate, Rand Paul was invited on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” Rand Paul has a generous libertarian streak, just as his famous father does, and he had been critical of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, saying he did not think government should tell private businesses how to run. On Rachel Maddow’s show, she obviously wasn’t going to let that go lightly. The Civil Rights Act is a touchy subject, and the wrong words can get a candidate on the fast track to having the extra cash they have in campaign coffers going to waste.
What he meant
He did scramble to clarify what he meant. He went on to say that of the 10 components of the act, he was completely behind of nine of them, but the one he didn’t like concerned business practices. He is a Tea Party darling, already has the Sarah Palin endorsement (though backing a candidate based on approval from a former governor that didn’t finish one term seems foolhardy), and is clearly after the populist right wing for votes. He celebrated his victory at one of the poshest country clubs in Kentucky, before going on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to the Christian Science Monitor.
Taboos exist for a reason
By saying something negative about the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul did not do himself any favors. Granted, his reasoning behind what he was saying was that he opposes excessive government intervention into the private sector. Governmental intrusions often benefit no one but the government, but sometimes, intrusions are made when doing nothing would permit the continued existence of an egregiously foul practice, which is what the Civil Rights Act banned.
Paul is right. That component is simply a "steping-stone" for the government to take complete control. Every small one counts.
The public enforces a business and how they practice. Discriminate against color, sex, religion etc. and chances are you won't be in business long.