Words and Consequences

Words have consequences, and it the world of politics and diplomacy, very large consequences. A couple of incautious sentences from an American diplomat about America's strategic interests were taken by Stalin as a sign to launch the Korean War - millions died and no peace treaty has yet been signed. A similar stupidity from one of GHW Bush's minions induced Saddam to take over Kuwait - we haven't finished with that yet either.

A lot of right-minded people were consequently appalled when Rand Paul suggested rethinking (and consequently refighting)the civil rights act. Enter Steve Landsburg:

“It’s now crystal clear what the Tea Party stands for” says Frank Rich midway through a column that makes it crystal clear what Frank Rich stands for, and it isn’t pretty.

Whatever you may think about the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a whole, it indisputably narrows property rights by allowing politicians to dictate the policies of private businesses. Not only is it perfectly reasonable to find that at least a little disturbing, it’s perfectly unreasonable not to find it a little disturbing


Landsburg goes on to whine some more about the "dimunition of property rights" in a subsequent post on the same topic. I think that it's perfectly consistent to acknowledge that yes, the civil rights law, like nearly every law, diminishes some property rights, while still being outraged that a Senatorial candidate would be pushing to repeal the prohibition of whites only lunch counters.

Of course there was a much larger dimunition of property rights when slavery was abolished, effectively wiping out the capital of almost all the richest families in the South. How many tears does Prof L shed for that? Enquiring minds want to know.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

Uneasy Lies The Head

We Call it Soccer