Reply #33: Concurring in part and dissenting in part

[Jack Rabbit]

I agree with you (and disagree with Dr. Paul) that nothing trumps the freedom of an individual to live freely in his own community.

I am saying, however, that Dr. Paul's disagreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not based on any personal animosity to people of a different skin color, and therefore libertarianism is not inherently racist.

I don't have a problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I support every title of it. I believe it is fitting and proper for the government to outlaw that kind of discrimination in public accommodations.

I am merely saying that Dr. Paul takes his views of the Civil Rights Act from ideals that have nothing to do with the race of the victim of discrimination. He opposes (kinda, sorta opposes) Title II of the act for other reasons. So, I will grant him that, but I disagree with him for other reasons.

Moreover, if Dr. Paul were actually a a racist, he would not say that he would participate in a boycott of a business that discriminates based on race. He thinks that is the proper action to take, and I believe injunctive relief is a stronger and also proper course of action.