So how 'bout that Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Bit of a brouhaha in the media of late since Rand Paul failed to answer a yes or no question put to him by Rachel Maddow in an interview. The context is, 'Title II' made it impossible to have it both ways in terms of a private business open for public business; concretely it dealt with eg., Walgreen's lunch counter and 'negroes'.
I would certainly agree that a private club can be as private as it wishes. But if you're open for business to the public, this idea is now out the window, since that legislation. Let's have another concrete example: in Arizona, at least where I've been, it's not legal to deny a person water who walks into your 'open for business' establishment and asks for water. As they could die of dehydration. That's not exactly a bastion of 'socialist' practices, southern AZ, you know. But there is an overriding concept of public good, nonetheless. Up until late we've come to expect this of a government, of, for, by the people. I think you can't expect to start knocking on people's doors in their private abodes and expect every one of them to care whether or not you are sufficiently hydrated or even that you're dying, that's what's the deal we're dealing in in a dog-eat dog system, that's reality. But there are extant standards for 'public accomodations' now. For ca. 46 years in fact.
So what does Dr Paul do in his amazing tap dance of avoiding revealing his real thought on the issue, ie., instead of a straight answer? He accuses Rachel of "blurring the line between private and public" and of going for 'an obscure abstraction from long ago'. Wait, I thought he was a philosopher... one in the midst of floating some quite dodgy abstractions in the effort to avoid a yes/no response to a concrete issue 'from long ago' which solution most of us take as a given.
To project your own perceived sin onto the person on the other side of an issue. Typical.
This 'tea party' so-called libertarian line of 'thought' is really amazing isn't it.
