Comments on: Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/ Libertarianism A to Z Sun, 06 May 2012 22:53:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Melissa Scott http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-2492 Melissa Scott Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:52:38 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-2492 Hi, Jeffrey. Would like to speak with you about your book. Trying to learn more about the 14th amendment as a student at Columbia. Thanks, Melissa Hi, Jeffrey.

Would like to speak with you about your book. Trying to learn more about the 14th amendment as a student at Columbia.

Thanks,

Melissa

]]> By: Larry Williams http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1249 Larry Williams Mon, 31 May 2010 18:06:25 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1249 "My main objection to Paul’s comments is that he backed down once challenged; I think he had it right in the first place." I agree wholeheartedly that he should have stood his ground and explained why his view is not a racist view, but that it, in fact, supports ones humanity. The last thing that I would want to do is to spend money at an establishment that did not want me. By passing a law that eliminates transparency, I, as a black man, lose the ability to discern who wants my business and who does not. Wouldn't it be better for people to patronize businesses that desire their business. I definitely believe so. “My main objection to Paul’s comments is that he backed down once challenged; I think he had it right in the first place.”

I agree wholeheartedly that he should have stood his ground and explained why his view is not a racist view, but that it, in fact, supports ones humanity.

The last thing that I would want to do is to spend money at an establishment that did not want me. By passing a law that eliminates transparency, I, as a black man, lose the ability to discern who wants my business and who does not. Wouldn’t it be better for people to patronize businesses that desire their business. I definitely believe so.

]]> By: Arnold http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1207 Arnold Wed, 26 May 2010 16:32:34 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1207 <i>Whatever the role of Title VII in generating gains for blacks, it is not the whole story. These gains would likely have come anyway—<b>perhaps somewhat more slowly</b></i> The problem is that the bolded part is not really an academic discussion for some segments of the population Whatever the role of Title VII in generating gains for blacks, it is not the whole story. These gains would likely have come anyway—perhaps somewhat more slowly

The problem is that the bolded part is not really an academic discussion for some segments of the population

]]> By: dfvazan http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1206 dfvazan Wed, 26 May 2010 14:57:53 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1206 The costs are not nil. Articles II (and VII) forced private individuals into associations they might otherwise shun. Mandating behavior seems like a rather high cost to me. And in this context the benefits are artificial. If these interactions are not voluntary and desired, can long-lasting and genuine progress really be expected? The results might have been slower coming without II and VII, but they also would have been willfully adopted and, thus, more deeply rooted and sincere. The costs are not nil. Articles II (and VII) forced private individuals into associations they might otherwise shun. Mandating behavior seems like a rather high cost to me. And in this context the benefits are artificial. If these interactions are not voluntary and desired, can long-lasting and genuine progress really be expected? The results might have been slower coming without II and VII, but they also would have been willfully adopted and, thus, more deeply rooted and sincere.

]]> By: John http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1205 John Wed, 26 May 2010 09:55:52 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1205 I agree with you on title IV and hiring but title II or equal access to places of "public accomodation" which are strictly defined in the bill is much easier to prove and doesn't necessarily lead to affirmative action as it doesn't have to do with hiring but letting people eat at your restaurant instead of having it whites or blacks or Asians only - for that specifically I agree with the Epstein article the costs are nil with high symbolic and significant substantive benefit. I agree with you on title IV and hiring but title II or equal access to places of “public accomodation” which are strictly defined in the bill is much easier to prove and doesn’t necessarily lead to affirmative action as it doesn’t have to do with hiring but letting people eat at your restaurant instead of having it whites or blacks or Asians only – for that specifically I agree with the Epstein article the costs are nil with high symbolic and significant substantive benefit.

]]> By: Jeffrey Miron http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1204 Jeffrey Miron Wed, 26 May 2010 09:19:38 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1204 On this issue, I disagree with Brink and Richard. On the relation between bans on discimination, and affirmative action, I think there is in fact exact causation. The reason is that a ban on discimination is essentially meaningless with affirmative action, because it is difficult to prove discriminatory intent. So few suits against discrimination would ever succed. That is why the U.S. adopted affirmative action. See the entires on discrimination and affirmative action in LAZ. jeff On this issue, I disagree with Brink and Richard.

On the relation between bans on discimination, and affirmative action, I think there is in fact exact causation. The reason is that a ban on discimination is essentially meaningless with affirmative action, because it is difficult to prove discriminatory intent. So few suits against discrimination would ever succed. That is why the U.S. adopted affirmative action.

See the entires on discrimination and affirmative action in LAZ.

jeff

]]> By: John http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/05/rand-paul-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/comment-page-1/#comment-1203 John Wed, 26 May 2010 08:46:20 +0000 http://jeffreymiron.com/?p=1282#comment-1203 Dr. Miron I have a question for you, based on your application of cost-benefit analysis. You basically state that the main cost of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been the further civil rights acts which were passed afterwords and led to affirmative action. Yet as there is no real evidence of causation (did Title II have to ultimately lead to other bills which would legislate affirmative action?) and since they are essentially different intrinsic questions - nondiscrimination law versus mandated hiring of minorities - is there any other cost-benefit case against Title II? If Title II did not lead to further affirmative action bills, would its costs still outweigh the benefits? Both Brink Lindsey and Richard Epstein have basically supported Title II (with a few modifications) because they saw the benefits outweighing the costs, see Epstein's article yesterday for instance which makes a cogent case: http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/24/rand-paul-rachel-maddow-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html Dr. Miron I have a question for you, based on your application of cost-benefit analysis. You basically state that the main cost of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been the further civil rights acts which were passed afterwords and led to affirmative action.

Yet as there is no real evidence of causation (did Title II have to ultimately lead to other bills which would legislate affirmative action?) and since they are essentially different intrinsic questions – nondiscrimination law versus mandated hiring of minorities – is there any other cost-benefit case against Title II?

If Title II did not lead to further affirmative action bills, would its costs still outweigh the benefits? Both Brink Lindsey and Richard Epstein have basically supported Title II (with a few modifications) because they saw the benefits outweighing the costs, see Epstein’s article yesterday for instance which makes a cogent case:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/24/rand-paul-rachel-maddow-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html

]]>