Not really a hard question, Laura.

New York Times gets Rand Paul wrong

Oh, yeah.

He dodged both times.

I think he is libertarian enough to hold that, in principle, private persons and clubs and businesses have a natural right to discriminate and he would much prefer actual governments honor that right, along with all natural rights.

I think his belief in natural rights is mistaken (see posts labeled “amoralism”) and his preference, in consequence, baseless.

And I think it’s his view that the 14^th Amendment does not actually empower the federal congress to legislate against such discrimination.

I think he is right.

On the other hand, Rachel’s scare scenario that the country would return to the regime of public and private segregation that existed back in the day, given the chance, is silly.

Times have changed and this is not the America, and we are not the American people, of 1950.

All the same, it might be best not to risk it.

A multi-racial or ethnic or religious society known for tensions should not risk needless exacerbation.

Anyway, Laura on the blog asks, “If government can't regulate restaurants with regard to discrimination, can it regulate them with regard to food safety?”

Well, yes.

The basis of the former – the federal prohibition on discrimination – is an incorrect interpretation of the 14^th Amendment.

The basis of the latter is the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce and the state’s own power to regulate intrastate commerce.

(So far as I know, it’s local authorities under state mandate that inspect and issue permits to restaurants, while federal authorities check out the meat, for example, for safety.)

Not really a hard question.

She also asks, “Does Paul care more about the principle of free speech on a Jim Crow sign than the free travel of African Americans?”

And I have no idea.

I don’t know that he was asked that by anyone during any interview.