Be careful about wanting the government to provide social justice

Recently, the Louisville Courier Journal printed a piece by John L. Johnson, Executive Director of the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, concerning comments made by Rand Paul regarding that part of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 which mandated that private businesses could not discriminate based on race.

---

This was followed up a couple of days later with an article written by Betty Winston Bayh on the same topic. They both miss the point. While I don't think it is necessary to read either of their articles to understand the message of my essay, you may want to read them for context, but I can promise, everything they say is completely predictable. The John L. Johnson article can be found here , and the Betty Winston Bayh piece can be found here . I wrote a letter to the Journal about it, but they didn't print it, so here it is.

---

I'd like to take a minute to respond to John L. Johnson, Executive Director of the Kentucky Commission on Human rights, regarding his comments relating to Rand Paul. For the record, I agree with Mr. Johnson on the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the correct, proper, and moral thing to do, even to the point of requiring private businesses not to discriminate. Actually, before it became an issue, I would have said the opposite. In fact, I did say the opposite. But since Rand Paul made his statement that the Civil Rights Act went too far, I have read, studied, and hashed it out on Facebook with people of many different opinions, and have come to the conclusion that it was necessary for the government to intervene in private business. This time. The question is why was it correct, proper, and moral? For those of us who feel that the government should be involved in our private business to the smallest degree possible consistent with public safety, it seems contradictory. When you look at all the times that the government has tried to legislate morality, (prohibition being just one example), it has a track record of eventually becoming corrupt, or out of control, or a political football, or too expensive, or starts to hurt the very people it was intended to help, or some combination of all of these. As is often the case with people passionate about their causes, Mr. Johnson, does not seem to see the whole picture. The reason it was necessary for the government to intervene in private affairs was to try to undo the damage done when it intruded into private affairs over the previous century by REQUIRING merchants to discriminate. There have always been racists, and there most likely always will be, but not every white American is a racist. Not in 1865, not in 1964, and not now. If all Americans were racist, would Abe Lincoln have been able to muster support for an army to fight against slavery? Would there have been an abolitionist movement? Would there have been an underground railroad? Would any white people have marched with Martin Luther King? Would a white Congress and white President have even brought up a civil rights act, but also knowing they would have to face their constituents, racists all, in the next election. All throughout our history since the Civil War, there have been white people who would have been happy to serve anyone who came into their store. Some, because they didn't have any racist inclinations, and some because they wanted the business. God bless the free market place. But it wasn't a free market place. It was dictated to by the government as to who they couldn't do business with, under the idea that eventually morphed into the concept of "Separate but equal". We all saw how that worked out, with the black schools getting used books while white schools got new ones, and public facilities for black Americans getting a fraction of the funding as equivalent facilities for white Americans. A free market didn't happen because businesses were REQUIRED TO DISCRIMINATE. If a merchant found out that a competitor was doing business with black people, they would tell the authorities, not because they didn't want the black person to have whatever product was in question, but because he would see it as unfair competition. If the government hadn't REQUIRED BUSINESSES TO DISCRIMINATE, I believe that there never would have been a need for the Civil Rights Act at all. Yes, there would have been some prejudice no matter what, but that is no different than today. But there would have been an awful lot of people conducting business with anybody who had the money to buy their goods and services, because in a free market economy, with minimal interference from the government, merchants gravitate towards the money. That is the only reason they are in business. And in doing business with black Americans, they would have made a few friends. By intermingling voluntarily, the barriers would have come down easier. By being forced to intermingle against their will, their prejudices were reinforced. The businesses that were just too prejudiced to adapt would have gradually gone out of business, as market share gravitated to the places where everyone was welcome. So, When Mr. Johnson looks to the government to pass laws that will solve racial issues, he should remember that it was the same government who created the problem in the first place. Like I said, government interference in business practices of private citizens in the case of the Civil Rights Act was the right thing to do, but if the government hadn't interfered in the business practices of private citizens over the course of the previous century, they wouldn't have had to undo the damage they caused, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. So, Mr. Johnson, let me ask you a question. Would you rather do business with a racist who is forced to do business with you under penalty of law, and therefore suffers no market share disadvantage as a result of his bigotry, or would you rather that person go out of business because a competitor down the street welcomed everyone instead of chasing money away? Government intervention into private lives almost always ends up doing more harm than good, no matter how noble the intention. That's the way I see it. Neill Arnhart