Burger and Fries with a Side of Duality

In light of the recent Dr. Rand Paul discovery from the public that he (Dr. Paul) would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act, but would still allow private companies to determine (by their own criteria) who will patron their business, exists a certain type of duality that deserves some attention. Before I continue, lets look at the definition of duality:

being twofold; a classification into two opposed parts or subclasses; “the dichotomy between eastern and western culture”

So simply, you are straddling two views that oppose each other. so in Dr. Paul’s case he is against institutional racism, but would allow some form of it (he doesn’t realize he is doing this) to protect his “libertarian” (I’ll tell you shortly why this view is not libertarian) view that any involvement of the federal government negates the rights of private companies liberty. In one instance he strangely uses the 1st Amendment to support his view. Freedom of speech and freedom to act are two different things. We must realize that certain acts supersede other acts if the 1st act clashes with the 2nd act.

So now lets look at the definition of Libertarianism defined by David Boaz:

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. (Equal Rights of others…hmmm..sound familiar…oh that sounds awfully like the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Hmm..can someone call Houston? Looks like we have a problem. Now regardless of how you feel about a particular person the key contradiction is allowing any company, individual or entity to discriminate against any well intentioned individual because they own a business, is in complete opposition to the underlying foundation of Libertarianism and the Civil Rights act of 1964. Am I missing something? Now we can have discussion on what “respect the rights” of other means, but denying someone their rights (to protect some ideological view of protecting the rights of private companies) so you can express your rights seems to be a contradiction.

Here’s another example:

In the Quran and related Hadiths it clearly states that all Muslims are prohibited from drinking alcohol. If I don’t drink alcohol, and participate in the production, marketing, distribution, and manufacturing of alcohol, am I still upholding my principles as a Muslim because I’m not literally drinking alcohol? For those suffering with the disease of duality, the answer would be Yes. And for those who don’t, the answer is NO.

Here lies the problem my friends. Dr. Paul and many of you out there…you can’t have it both ways my friend…although I know you want it like that.

You might also like this:

1. Healthcare Reform Needs a Time Machine In less than 1 billionth of a second after signing...