I just read an article by Cathy Young regarding Rand Paul and the Libertarians argument that the CRA's restrictions on private businesses is flawed, however they (Libertarians') will never win the argument.
Young lays out the argument:
Late last month on the Rachel Maddow MSNBC show, Paul opined that privately owned establishments should be able to decide whom to serve without government interference.
Then seeks to make Fox News and Joh n Stossels a victim of Left Wing Media race baiting:
A firestorm ensued. While Paul quickly clarified that he would neither advocate nor support a repeal of the Civil Rights Act clause banning discrimination by private businesses, libertarian TV journalist John Stossel fanned the flames on Fox News by not only defending Paul's initial remarks but explicitly suggesting that that portion of the law should be repealed. Some on the left, including the Media Matters watchdog group, have demanded Stossel be fired for his heresy. In fact, his view is neither inherently racist (he has stressed that he would never patronize a restaurant that excluded blacks) nor "repugnant," as Media Matters claims. It is an intellectually consistent and legitimate, if moot, argument.
Yet this controversy also illustrates a certain myopia that often plagues discussions of race among supporters of small government, and plays into knee-jerk charges of right-wing racism.
Then seeks to blame it on a sign of the times in America:
It's fine to discuss the intellectual merits of free-market and free-association arguments against the ban on private discrimination. But the reminder that fifty years ago, such obscene practices were not only condoned but socially approved in large parts of this country should shock our conscience as Americans.
Well let's take a look at some of the arguments made in support of Young Paul's and Libertarians' positions in regards to Government laws regarding the rights of Businesses to associate with whom they want.
- Private businesses should be left to their own devices and Government should play no role with telling them who they should serve or not serve.
- Private groups like the KKK, CBC, and the by scouts get to exclude groups why can't private businesses?
- Let people choose what businesses they would frequent Government should not be involved.
Well, let's see in all these cases except number 2, these so called private businesses are providing a service to the public at large. I think we can agree that the government plays a role with protecting the public from being harmed, right. So if a private business owner is harming the public, Government has to intervene in those cases, right? Well of course. If a private restaurant owner is serving food that is contaminated with rat/mice feces because of cleanliness or the condition of its building then we would want some government intervention right. However, why is that so different than if an owner was seeking to order the removal of a patron he/she did not want in the establishment? The owner would have to seek some type of government intervention in this case the police. Assuming Libertarians are NOT for owners of private businesses ordering unwanted patrons out of their establishments at gunpoint/knife point, bat in hand, etc. So if government has a right to intervene, then it is reasonable to assume that government should lay down some basic rules for private businesses doing business with the public, right? of course.
In the case of private clubs or entities, the government plays no role, except if that entity wanted to provide a service or deny the liberty of a public citizen. So trying to equate private businesses with private entities such as the CBC, KKK, or the boy scouts is unreasonable.
So my point is that if a private business is providing some type of service, product, etc to the public then government has some role with regulating that entity. The protection of the public is the over-riding mission of the government at every level and seeking to make an argument against that is counter-intuitive to what Libertarians say a small governments role is. Its akin to trying to fit the "round' flawed political argument, into the square hole. It doesn't make sense.