In this Dispatch:
* Is freedom of association inherently racist?
* Is Rand Paul racist?
* Are YOU a racist?
* Is the Establishment Media confused? ...being rude?
* Should the Establishment Media's confusion and rudeness be resisted?
* Or should you simply submit?
Truth in Labeling
It's no secret that most members of the media, would, if pressed, identify as liberal or progressive.
But we reject the Establishment Media's preferred self-descriptions. We think . . .
* It isn't liberal to advocate State coercion as the preferred solution to EVERY problem.
* It isn't progressive to favor the CONSTANT expansion of the Incompetent State. Frankly, that is RE-gressive.
So you won't hear us talking about the "liberal media," or the "progressive media." To us, most of the journalists who work in the Establishment Media are simply "Statists."
* The majority are Left-Statists, though some are Right-Statists.
* Many of them are partisan hacks, pimping either for the Democrats or the Republicans.
This discussion of labels is important because the Statist media is easily confused about what words mean, and they constantly misuse labels. For instance . . .
* The Left-Statist media is easily (willingly?) confused about the subject of RACISM.
* The Left-Statist media thinks that anyone who disagrees with Left-Statism MUST be a RACIST, and so . . .
* The Left-Statists constantly misuse the RACIST LABEL, just as they misunderstand and misuse the words liberal and progressive.
Rand Paul is the latest victim of this confusion, and YOU MAY BE NEXT.
In fact, that's what bothers us most. Politics is a contact sport. But is it reasonable or accurate to assume, and then, to report that everyone who disagrees with Statist policies on education, on health care, and other issues, are just racists? If YOU disagree with statism, does that make you a bigot?
That's certainly not true. Therefore, we can't label it "journalistic integrity." So . . .
Let's clear up the confusion. Freedom of association is an Inalienable Right, and a Constitutional right as well. It's also a PRACTICAL right that makes civil society possible. Freedom of association enables . . .
* Black Entertainment Television (BET) to focus on African-American entertainers
* Tyler Perry to make movies with black actors for black audiences
* Churches to hire only co-religionists
* Atheist organizations to hire only other atheists
* Environmental organizations to hire only environmentalists
* Modeling agencies to hire only pretty people
* Women to have gatherings that exclude men
* Men to have gatherings that exclude women
* Gays to have gatherings that exclude straight people
* Stores to post signs prohibiting gun owners from carrying their guns into the store, even if the gun owner has a concealed carry permit.
All of these practices are discriminatory, and they are based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, and personal beliefs. But none of these practices justify an assumption of racism, sexism, or any other form of bigotry. Instead, imagine what America would be like if THE STATE was really allowed to crack down on all forms of discrimination?
It would be hell on Earth!
Our country would end up being a police state -- a complete dictatorship. And say goodbye to BET and Tyler Perry movies.
This is the logical conclusion of what the Left-Statists claim to believe, and because Rand Paul has DARED to defend the freedom of association, the Left-Statist Media has labeled him a racist.
To be specific . . .
Rand Paul has said that he objects to ONLY ONE provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the provision that prohibits discrimination by individuals. It's easy to understand why this provision was passed . . .
Many State Governments, in both the North and the South, prohibited African-Americans from sharing accommodations with white people. Jim Crow laws -- GOVERNMENT! -- forced blacks and whites to eat at separate lunch counters, sleep in separate hotels, attend separate schools, and use separate water fountains and restrooms.
This was truly a great evil. But please take notice . . .
These were STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, and NOT the private decisions of individuals! Governments were denying their citizens the FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE!
So Rand Paul has said that he supports those provisions of the Civil Rights Act that . . .
* Ended STATE COMPELLED discrimination
* Prohibited discrimination by the government (which must serve all equally)
Mr. Paul favors those provisions because he defends the freedom of association. But that's also why he OPPOSES the solitary provision of the Civil Right Acts that violates the freedom of association by COMPELLING citizens to associate with each other, whether they want to or not.
Would this mean, for instance, that a racist restaurant owner might refuse to serve people of different ethnicities? Yes it does. BUT, it also means that such a person would be visible to the public, and would suffer the condemnation and loss of business that such bigotry SO RICHLY DESERVES.
Civil society and voluntary action can also play a role in responding to problems such as bigotry. Jim Crow laws meant that all businesses were joined in a monopoly of racism -- no opportunistic business owner could legally undermine the racist policies of his competition. So you see . . .
NOT EVERY PROBLEM HAS TO BE DEALT WITH BY STATE COERCION!
But, because of Rand Paul's principled position in favor of freedom of association, the Left-Statist Media has labelled him a RACIST.
Are they doing this because they oppose freedom of association in general, or in this specific case, simply because Rand Paul is a Republican running against a Democrat? It's hard to know for sure, but one thing is certain . . .
The charge of racism is the Left-Statist media's favorite smear. And rather than be smeared, it seems that Dr. Paul has decided to retreat into silence -- refusing, for instance, to appear on "Meet the Press."
This is understandable, and we sympathize.
Once the media gangsters start asking you "if you still beat your wife," it's often impossible to get them to stop until you either quit, or drown in the negative publicity, but . . .
We here at Downsize DC are of a different inclination
Candidate Rand Paul can handle his affairs however he prefers. But Downsize DC is always inclined to attack in defense of sound principles.
We think the media should pay a price for smearing people, and for failing to treat a reasonable position in a reasonable way. We're inclined to defend the freedom of association against the charge of racism. Perhaps you feel the same way . . .
* Do you support freedom of association and believe that it should be applied consistently?
* Do you deny that this makes you a racist?
* Do you believe that a consistent application of the freedom of association would expose true racists to the public condemnation and loss of business that they so richly deserve?
* Do you merely wish that the media would treat these reasonable arguments in a reasonable way?
* Do you want the media to stop smearing people with the charge of racism, and to treat people who prefer voluntary, social power over state coercion with respect?
If you're inclined to fight for your principles rather than submit to smears, then there are several things we could do . . .
* We could begin bombarding Left-Statist journalists with messages defending the freedom of association
* We could also hit the media with press releases doing the same thing
* We could start a campaign asking Congress to repeal that part of the Civil Rights Act that violates freedom of association
* We could produce a relatively inexpensive but professional TV ad supporting free association, and we could try to run it in Left-Statist places, like MSNBC -- we might even be able to generate publicity if MSNBC (or others) reject the ad (which could happen)
What do you think? Are these things you want? If so, we'll need funding, because we don't have a budget for any of these projects. We're passionate about arresting the unjust practice of smearing all small government proponents. BUT OUR PASSION PAYS NO BILLS. It really depends on YOUR passion. If you'd like to see us fight this fight, then please make a contribution to fund it.
The more we do, the more it will cost. And the other side is spending millions, at this point, in their smear attack. Every candidate who takes a principled stand for Downsizing DC is in danger of being savaged and destroyed. Will we respond?
We will take action to defend and promote freedom of association. But how much we do depends on how much support we get TODAY.
You can contribute here: http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/
And based on your contributions, we'll begin reporting back on our plans.
Jim Babka and Perry Willis
President & Vice President