Richard Randall on Civil Rights

No affirmative action but no legalized discrimination either

Q: Your views on Affirmative Action?

A: Libertarians want to see people of all types working in the most harmonious relationships. "Affirmative action" refers to laws which force people into relationships whether they want them or not. Not too many years ago, there were laws in many states which prevented people of different races from doing a variety of things together, working, eating, marriage, etc. Libertarians oppose all such laws because the people involved have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to enter a relationship or association.

Attempts to correct bigotry with affirmative action haven't worked very well. Such laws are easy for bigots to circumvent and people tend to think minority employees did not earn their positions on merit even if they did. They also make it possible for bigots to harass minorities by demanding employment at minority owned businesses.

Source: E-mail exchange with OnTheIssues.org Oct 17, 2004

Require equal treatment for minorities in government hiring

Q: Your views on Affirmative Action in government hiring?

A: An old saying states: "it takes two to tango." Relationships or associations require at least two people. We cannot justify using force to keep people out of voluntary relationships and we cannot justify forcing private citizens into relationships against their will.

Government employment is a different case. The only criteria for employment or advancement in government work should be merit. The Constitution requires that we all be given equal treatment under the law. Since governments are created by law, they are Constitutionally required to be absolutely even handed. Private citizens or companies on the other hand have the right to be stupid and suffer the consequences.

Source: E-mail exchange with OnTheIssues.org Oct 17, 2004

Right to private choice in consensual sexual activity

Adults should have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. I oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship (e.g., Same Sex Union). I will support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles between adults or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
Source: Campaign website, www.lpcocandidates.org/randall/, "Issues" Oct 14, 2004

No national identification card

Washington politicians are once again seriously considering imposing a national identification card. The much-hailed 9/11 Commission report recommends a federal ID card and, worse, a "larger network of screening points" inside the US. Does this mean we are to have "screening points" inside our country where American citizens will be required to "show their papers" to government officials? It certainly sounds that way!

A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American. History shows that governments inevitably use the power to monitor the actions of people in harmful ways. Claims that the government will protect the privacy of Americans when implementing a national identification card ring hollow. Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken.

Source: Campaign website, www.lpcocandidates.org/randall/, "Issues" Oct 14, 2004

PATRIOT Act is culmination of erosion of civil liberties

The history of our nation is the story of a government constantly attempting to outgrow the Constitutional box we put it in and of a people struggling to stuff it back into that box. Sadly, government has grown so far beyond its Constitutional bounds that we can barely see the box any more.

How did that happen? A little at a time. There's always someone who would have us trade a little liberty for a little security-a "reasonable gun control" law here, a "War on Drugs" there ... before you know it, it all adds up. What it adds up to is the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI spying on library patrons and hundreds, maybe even thousands of prisoners held without charge, counsel or even public acknowledgement that they've been "detained."

How do we fix it? By being just as uncompromising in our defense of liberty as our enemies are in their attacks upon it. Let us take our cue from Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Source: Campaign website, www.lpcocandidates.org/randall/, "Issues" Oct 14, 2004

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for policy papers on Civil Rights.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Richard Randall.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Civil Rights in The Forum.
Other candidates on Civil Rights: Richard Randall on other issues:
CO Gubernatorial:
Bill Owens
CO Senatorial:
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Bob Schaffer
Hank Brown
Ken Salazar
Mike Miles
Pete Coors
Raul Acosta
Tom Strickland
Wayne Allard

George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta
(CT)Dodd v.Orchulli
(FL)Castor v.Martinez
(GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley
(IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop
(IL)Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Wyden v.King
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter
(SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Michels
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes