This is one of the first times I find I'm not completely in agreement with Rachel. Paul gave an answer that was perfectly clear...insisting that he put it in her specific words is overkill. And even if he did put it in those words it doesn't make it more clear.

From there on, however, she's doing a good job of showing Paul's own flavor of bat-shit crazy. Bachmann's going to have to step up her game if she wants to retain the title.

You rock, Rachel.

Sorry @Stormsinger, but Rand's answer was not clear, because he's attempting to bridge the intersection between the utopian dream of perfect libertarian freedom and the hard, nasty reality of a country partially populated by dumb racists. He's run into a logical paradox where the rights of two individuals are at odds with each other. The lunch counter owner should have the right to discriminate against any customers they don't like, but the public should have the right to eat where-ever they want. Paradox?

I admire the philosophy of classic liberalism, but unfortunately there are places where the government HAS to step on individual freedoms to combat inequality and injustice.

Later, in the future, when we have more enlightened people and fewer dumb racists, maybe then we can realize a government built on the best aspects of human nature. Until then we have to have laws that curb the worst aspects of it.

@KnivesOut:
I thought he made it quite clear he was on the side of the business owner. Just because he refused to state it in so many words doesn't make it unclear. It -does- however, demonstrate a certain lack of integrity, this refusal to put his stance in plain English.

I quite agree with you on everything but that one single point. The Civil Rights Act is one of the few truly awesome pieces of legislation our government has produced. All of it, not just the 10 sections he likes. It's one of the rare examples of what our country -could- be, if we ever have a sudden outbreak of sanity again.

Property or People. Choose.

You'd think, in a good old fashioned capitalist society, that the only colour that would matter is the colour of the patrons money...

I may only be dreaming, but I like to think that even without the government forcing businesses to allow all races, that eventually those businesses that did discriminate would simply go out of business. Like Rand said, it's just not good business practice.

The question to me is, would our culture develop faster (toward racial equality as well as many other topics) without the "enlightened" pushing us toward the future? Is it possible that legislating an enlightened attitude simply suppresses the ignorance and bigotry so that it lingers and festers? Is it possible that without the civil rights legislation that bigotry will disappear faster? I don't know. Probably not. But it is what libertarians believe, and they have every right to believe that without being lumped in with the bigots. I wish it were true, so I see where Rand is coming from.

BTW, this is modern politics. A politician can't always give a straight answer to a nuanced question, because an out-of-context sound bite can ruin a career.

anybody else cringe when she smacked the tuning fork on the table? my lab professor raped somebody for that once.