Let me start by quoting the now infamous remarks of Sen. Trent Lott at the birthday bash for Sen. Strom Thurmond: "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

When I first heard about Sen. Trent Lott's recklessness, I couldn't believe it, but in a second or two I thought better of my own incredulity.

Why do I expect even the virtue of prudence from a politician? Am I falling prey to the notion that public servants must be made of better stuff than to go public with utterly insulting and indiscrete remarks?

There is, of course, something to a suggestion in Sen. Lott's remarks, concerning how things would have turned out without all the federal civil rights entitlement legislation. These are the laws that force whites to provide blacks with certain kinds of treatment in the marketplace, treatment that limits others' freedom to trade on terms they choose. Professor Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law, wrote a book in 1992, "Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws," published by Harvard University Press, arguing just that thesis. Those laws are arguably bad for blacks and whites alike, such as the affirmative action provisions read into the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But criticizing the entitlement laws enacted during the civil rights legislative era is very different from endorsing government-mandated racial segregation. Such criticism is aimed at government either forcing people to associate or banning their associating freely, by their own choices.

What Sen. Strom Thurmond represented back in the days for which Sen. Trent Lott appears to have nostalgic feelings is forced segregation. Saying he wished others than Mississippians had followed his lead and voted to elect Thurmond president of the United States of America pretty much says he wished that forced racial segregation were still with us, indeed, should have been extended across the country.

Does the man know what he is talking about?

In 1958 I signed up for the U.S. Air Force. Boot camp was at Lackland Air Force Base near San Antonio, Texas, and on our first weekend pass – after about four weeks of confinement to base – a bunch of us made the rounds in San Antonio's entertainment district. A lot of memories remain from this outing, but one of them has relevance to Sen. Lott's clearly implied but utterly ridiculous endorsement of segregation.

The group of us who came down from Lackland to have a little fun first went to a bar to get a drink. We had no awareness of the prevailing racist segregationist policies of the city. When we asked for our drink, our black mates were refused service. A big argument ensued, and in time the rest of us all canceled drink orders and left in a huff. We decided to find ways of having fun that didn't involve dealing with segregation laws. The episode never turned violent – we were all more interested in a good time than in starting a revolution. But the event was etched into my memory forever.

Now, it is one thing to live in a country where segregation is not forbidden. That is the price of liberty – one cannot impose terms of trade on other people. Even today, consumers are free to yield to their irrational racist feelings when they select the merchants with whom they will trade. But it is another thing entirely when segregation is mandated, as it had been in much of the South until 1964.

Such mandatory segregation means that even those who hadn't an ounce of prejudice in their hearts would be forced to discriminate between blacks and whites in both private trade and in public affairs. In short, mandated racial segregation, or apartheid, means that even those who have no desire to remain separated from their fellow citizens simply on grounds of color or race would be prohibited from such association in many realms of social and economic life. That seemed to us both simply indecent and a violation of basic human rights – perhaps even the constitutional right mentioned in the First Amendment, namely, "the right of the people to peaceably assemble."

Sen. Trent Lott, given his political sentiments, does not deserve to be the head of the U.S. Senate. He has openly admitted to supporting public policies that follow the segregationist line. Of course, some might think that Sen. Lott's indiscretion is merely an instance of political incorrectness and thus it is he who is the victim. I've heard him defended on grounds that he has the right of freedom of expression, just as a Nazi or Communist does, whom the ACLU would eagerly defend. Yet, this isn't the same thing.

If the president of the United States or any other official declared his allegiance to the goals of an enemy nation, that too would only be his words, yet it would border on treason. And in such cases political – or shall we say philosophical – correctness is a good thing: You better embrace it, otherwise you don't qualify as an official representative of this country.

Renouncing liberty for even a small segment of the U.S. citizenry should disqualify someone as a public servant. So, renouncing liberty for all black people in the U.S., a country that is committed to the principle of "equality under the law for all," certainly warrants someone's withdrawing from public office!

Tibor Machan teaches business ethics at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., and advises Freedom Communications Inc. on public policy matters. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and his latest book, with James Chesher, is "A Primer on Business Ethics" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002).