Rand Paul is not a racist, but is he blinded to the impact his ideology would have?

[iNow]

So, Rand Paul's is cut in the image of his father, where he favors small government in a big way... So big, in fact, that he thinks the Civil Rights Act did more to restrict liberty than to make liberty universal. He's taking heat from Republican and Democrat leaders alike.

 

I'd like to make clear my own feelings.

 

I am abundantly confident that Rand Paul is NOT a racist.

I am, however, not so confident that he's capable of seeing the negative impact the implementation of some of his ideology would have... I am not confident that he's willing to adjust his philosophy due to that negative impact.

 

He has canceled his appearance this Sunday on Meet the Press because he wanted to avoid "the liberal bias of the media."

 

I say, what a cop-out.

You stand so firm behind your philosophy that you are willing to suggest that the civil rights act is out of line, as are the FDA, and the Federal Reserve, and you don't even have the courage of your convictions enough to stand behind them on a national program like MTP?

 

 

I know he's not racist... I also know that his philosophy has become so important to him that he can no longer see the real-world impact it's implementation would have.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64M1Y120100523?type=politicsNews

The head of the Republican Party criticized Senate candidate Rand Paul on Sunday for questioning the landmark Civil Rights Act and said the Kentucky libertarian's views were out of step with the party and country.

 

<...>

 

Paul, who won the Republican Senate nomination in Kentucky last week with strong support from the conservative "Tea Party" movement, told MSNBC last week he did not think private businesses should have to abide by civil rights laws.

 

Michael Steele, the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Paul's criticism of provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act arose from the candidate's libertarian philosophy but "his philosophy is misplaced in these times."

 

"I don't think it's where the country is right now. The country litigated the issue of separate but equal," Steele told the "Fox News Sunday" show. "I think in this case Rand Paul's philosophy got in the way of reality."

 

<...>

 

Asked on ABC's "This Week" about Paul's views on the civil rights law, Steele said: "I wasn't comfortable with it."

 

<...>

 

Paul also drew fire last week for saying President Barack Obama's criticism of BP for the Gulf Coast oil spill sounded "un-American" and that "sometimes accidents happen."

 

<...>

 

Paul, the son of libertarian Representative Ron Paul, canceled a scheduled appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday as he sought refuge from the criticism. But that did not stop everyone else from talking about him.

 

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential candidate, said Paul had been a media victim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

George Will, conservative who appears regularly on THIS WEEK also seems to agree with me:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/george-will-rand-paul-is-frivolous.html

George F. Will doesn’t mince words. Rand Paul is “frivolous.”

 

“There is no reason to believe Rand Paul is a racist. There is now reason to believe that he is frivolous,” Will said on “This Week.”

 

“He doesn’t understand that his job is to win a Senate seat, not conduct a seminar on libertarian philosophy,” Will told “This Week” host Jake Tapper.

 

“The simple fact is that in 1964, we, as a nation, repealed one widely-exercised right – the right of private property owners to serve on public accommodations whom they want – and replaced it with another right, that is the right of the entire American public to use public accommodations,” Will said.

 

“We were correct to do so and in the process, we refuted an old notion: that you cannot – and this may offend some libertarians – the notion was you cannot legislate morality. Yes you can,” Will said. “We did.”

 

“We not only got African-Americans into public accommodations, we changed the thinking of the white portion of the country as well,” he explained.

 

Video at the link.

 

 

 

What are your thoughts?

Edited May 23, 2010 by iNow

[bascule]

He has canceled his appearance this Sunday on Meet the Press because he wanted to avoid "the liberal bias of the media."

 

That's rather odd, considering he announced his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show, and recently appeared on her show again:

 

-3O2rBz9gwo

VqAAfSfap5w

 

(and note: if you're looking for a good example of why Rachel Maddow is not "the liberal Rush Limbaugh" or some other silly, ignorant comparison, watch this interview. She does an excellent job with her questions, which is perhaps why Rand Paul has chosen to appear on her show repeatedly)

 

I am abundantly confident that Rand Paul is NOT a racist.

 

I'm certain he's not a racist either. He supports what I do think is a truly libertarian idea that businesses should get to choose their customers based on any criteria they desire, and if they don't want blacks as patrons, they don't have to serve them. He said he'd support every part of the Civil Rights Act except this, and would certainly support the end of segregation and discrimination by the government itself, but private business owners get a bye. He claims business owners will naturally serve all races without a law to enforce it because that's the better business decision. Riiiight...

 

I think if Rand Paul had actually marched with Martin Luther King as he claims he would have instead of that simply being a hollow political statement, he might have a different opinion on that matter. Listening to the NPR interview (in the above Maddow video) and Maddow's follow up questions on the "right" of business owners to discriminate based on race, it's clear he's more than a little uneasy about following his position through to its logical conclusion, and simply prefers to divert the conversation rather than address it.

 

The interview gets especially confusing when Rachel Maddow asks Rand Paul about a ban on interracial dating at Bob Jones University (which is private). Rand Paul counters with a rather confusing metaphor about gun rights, and whether or not people are allowed to bring guns into public restaurants, and how others are blurring the distinction between "public and private". This is especially odd because until he did this, Rand Paul had been using the word "public" to mean "government owned", then threw "public" in in the gun analogy scenario to mean "a restuarant that serves the general public rather than select private clientèle". The implication was that liberals would support allowing a "private" restaurant to ban its members from openly carrying firearms, but wouldn't allow them to, say, ban black people.

 

So suddenly the entire tone of what he's saying has shifted. Now it's no longer "private" as in "part of the private sector". It's private as in "exclusive".

 

I personally have no problems with a private, exclusive club using whatever criteria they want to select members. Do they want to ban blacks? Do they only want to allow other Irishmen? I don't care. At the same time I wonder if Rand Paul would support these establishments banning people from carrying firearms.

 

After being repeatedly confronted with questions like "Do you think Woolworth's lunch counters should have been allowed to remain segregated, yes or no?" Rand Paul can only dodge. He's fine speaking hypothetically about the rights of private business owners but can't commit when given a specific example.

 

All in all, Rand Paul's views on this issue are still clear as mud. Which is very odd, because as a fellow libertarian (albeit a liberal one) you could construct similar yes or no questions around my other civil libertarian beliefs and I could answer them outright.

 

For example, if you asked me, do I support the rights of racists to say "If I had my way, I'd kill every n...(black person) in America", I would say, "Absolutely. I strongly condemn what they're saying, but I support their Constitutional right to say it"

 

Rand Paul, given the Woolworth's lunch counter scenario, can't answer with similar resolution "Absolutely. I strongly condemn Woolworth's keeping lunch counters segregated but I support their right to do so." Instead, it's dodge, parry, dance dance dance.

Edited May 23, 2010 by bascule

[iNow]

That's rather odd, considering he announced his candidacy on the Rachel Maddow show, and recently appeared on her show again:

 

Indeed. That is incredibly inconsistent.

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37279599/ns/meet_the_press/ns/meet_the_press

Rand Paul's spokesman sent a statement to MEET THE PRESS this morning indicating that he didn't want to be on the program because he wanted to avoid the liberal bias of the media, and I wonder what your view is, whether you think this is liberal bias that's ensnared him this week or whether it's the articulation of his own views about the limited scope of government that had senior Republicans in the party telling him to avoid the national spotlight?

[Pangloss]

I'm a bit confused about the sequence of events. I was under the impression that it was after Paul's second appearance on Maddow that he then decided to cancel his appearance on MTP (that cancellation was announced several days ago). Is that not the case? Did he appear on her show again, like today, i.e. a third time?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On the subject at hand, this is why textbook libertarians have to wake up. It's not just left-wing media agendas they're running into, or the necessities of realpolitik. It's actual conflicts in their reasoning. If you are going to take an absolutist position then you had best be prepared to face the kinds of arguments that you aren't going to face when you're staring at a room full of people who already agree with you.

 

There was a great quote earlier in the week from Arizona Senator (and Republican) John Kyl, who liked one of the Maddow interviews to a 2am college debate. Of course he was trying to suggest that it was a mere academic debate and not a meaningful indication of Paul's opinions, but that's a cop out. If he's going to be a United States Senator he has a responsibility to be clear and on point, because we need the country to be clear and on point.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[jackson33]

While I agree, business entities (retail/production/service) should be allowed to hire, fire or cater to whomever they please (English only/dress codes) I agree, race between the whomevers shouldn't be applied and as is, is against law. Frankly, I can't imagine a business that would use the authority today, but in the past since those laws were enacted, many might just as well put signs out, saying no Hispanics (know about) and assume Blacks or maybe others, not allowed. Attitude is very hard to hide and just as objectionable as any sign.

 

As for Rand Paul, he just closed my earlier case on his National Stage appearance, it won't happen and may have hurt his current bid. If those here are any indication of what some media is spinning "I am abundantly confident that Rand Paul is NOT a racist. iNow", then it may not hurt this year.

[bascule]

While I agree, business entities (retail/production/service) should be allowed to hire, fire or cater to whomever they please

 

Should public restaurants be able to tell you whether or not you're allowed to bring guns inside?

[Pangloss]

Great question.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Great article in today's (ultra-conservative?!) Wall Street Journal, highly critical of Rand Paul and even citing the Cato Institute in support!

 

But to Democrats, some Republicans and even some libertarians, Mr. Paul's arguments seem detached from the social fabric that has bound the U.S. together since 1937. The federal government puts limits on pollutants from corporations, monitors the safety of toys and other products and ensures a safe food supply—much of which Mr. Paul's philosophy could put in question.

 

David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said that in many ways Americans are freer now than they were in any pre-1937 libertarian Halcyon day. Women and black citizens can vote, work and own property. "Micro-regulations" that existed before the Supreme Court shift, which controlled trucking, civil aviation and other private pursuits, are gone.

 

"Sometimes he talks the way libertarians talk in political seminars," Mr. Boaz said of Mr. Paul. "There are not really many people who want to reverse Wickard, but there are many professors who could make a good case for it."

 

Wow! Did I read that right?! A guy from Cato Institute arguing that we're free enough and don't really need to be a lot freer?!

 

Here's a quick quote from earlier in the article explaining the "Wickard" reference:

 

[Paul] told the crowd there of Wickard v. Filburn, a favorite reference on the stump, in which the Supreme Court rejected the claims of farmer Roscoe Filburn that wheat he grew for his own use was beyond the reach of federal regulation. The 1942 ruling upheld federal laws limiting wheat production, saying Mr. Filburn's crop affected interstate commerce. Even if he fed his wheat to his own livestock, the court reasoned, he was implicitly affecting wheat prices. If he had bought the wheat on the market, he would subtly have raised the national price of the crop.

 

"That's when we quit owning our own property. That's when we became renters on our own land," Mr. Paul told the crowd.

[bascule]

Great article in today's (ultra-conservative?!) Wall Street Journal, highly critical of Rand Paul and even citing the Cato Institute in support!

 

Wow! Did I read that right?! A guy from Cato Institute arguing that we're free enough and don't really need to be a lot freer?!

 

I really have to hand it to the Cato Institute, again and again. They're conservative libertarianism done right. None of this wishy washy Ron/Rand Paul crap.

 

It'd be pretty awesome if Cato institute members Penn & Teller covered Ron/Rand Paul on their show Bullsh*t. I think they may have touched on Ron Paul before. But now Rand Paul seems like an out and out libertarian wannabe who's still a fundie at heart. I wonder if Penn would call him out on it.

[Moontanman]

Racism is an ugly thing, based more in classism that any reality of skin color, skin color is just easier to recognize than trailer park trash. I grew up in the deep south, I've heard every argument for and against racism than anyone could possibly know who didn't grow up here.

 

In my 55 short years what I think it's all boiled down to is the real human need to feel like you are fundamentally better than some one else, anyone else.

 

What this guy is doing is trying to tap into that feeling of "I have to be better than some one else in a fundamental way" I think it's a cheap shot against what libertarians stand for and it appeals to the worst in us all.

 

I can't honestly side with any particular political ideology due to having a brain that understands that nothing is black and white, right or left, or even right or wrong from all points of view. In a working society there has to be both limits and freedoms, all sides have to be viewed and the best parts of each used until society changes so that they are no longer necessary. I would say a great many "white" people are glad they no longer need to live the lie of racism/choice. I know people of color are glad the lie is no longer fashionable at the very least.

 

Society seems to churn out these people of absolutes on a consistent basis, luckily for "us" and I mean everyone of all ideologies it has been increasingly difficult for this type of person to form their cult of personality. However, while I honestly believe in freedom of the individual over the power of the government I know that the freedom of the individual cannot be allowed to become the power of the government.

 

There has to be limits on the power of both individuals and the government, this guy is capitalizing on the reality that most people don't understand what their own personal idea of freedom would result in if given free reign. (I'd probably be stoned and naked most of the time ) He has shown he not only doesn't have a true belief but that he is unwilling to face the results of having his purported belief.

 

As for gun control i am an avid pro gun person but on the other hand i would not even think of carrying a gun into a restaurant where the owner objected to me carrying one. personal choice also comes with personal responsibility, something the whole of our society doesn't seem to understand unless it conforms to their personal world view.

[ecoli]

I'm glad to see SFN liberals keeping their cool over this. A bunch of liberals on my facebook (mostly family members) are going goo goo over this... proclaiming that this is clinching proof that republicans are the racists they always knew they were (that Paul is just bad at hiding it!).

 

Obviously, however, if you already think Republicans are racist, finding new evidence is not great proof! (Especially when you're not bothering to look for counterevidence).

 

HOWEVER, although I disagree with the media establishment that this isn't proof that Rand Paul is racist, I think that it is proof that Paul isn't very antiracist.

 

For example, he hasn't offered much in the way of proof that the markets 'cure' racism. Check out this blogging heads episode on identity economics for a discussion on this point: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/27930?in=00:39&out=10:35

 

If Paul was a better antiracist, he wouldn't be so ideologically against finding any/alternative solution to stop racism.

 

He's also a bad politician, but I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

It'd be pretty awesome if Cato institute members Penn & Teller covered Ron/Rand Paul on their show Bullsh*t. I think they may have touched on Ron Paul before. But now Rand Paul seems like an out and out libertarian wannabe who's still a fundie at heart. I wonder if Penn would call him out on it.

 

He's definitely trying to appeal to mainstream conservatism in some ways that his father isn't (such as supporting medicare). They are somewhat unlibertarian (a la Cato) in their support of anti-illegal immigration policies and abortion.

 

I've volunteered at Cato events, and they do good work and are open minded to alternative ideas.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I think iNow, Bascule and Ecoli sum up my disappointments right nicely. I lost all respect for him when he bailed out of Meet The Press - that's the perfect place to lay your intellectual case and best chance at being received fairly. But he blew it. And now he's showing his cowardice as he pretends to apologize and take it back, while not actually taking it back...but not actually sticking to it either...I'm not sure what the hell he's saying at this point.

 

Rand Paul. Grow a spine and take up for your beliefs. Or stop believing them.

[iNow]

On the subject at hand, this is why textbook libertarians have to wake up. It's not just left-wing media agendas they're running into, or the necessities of realpolitik. It's actual conflicts in their reasoning. If you are going to take an absolutist position then you had best be prepared to face the kinds of arguments that you aren't going to face when you're staring at a room full of people who already agree with you.

Now that's a rather interesting point. I opened a thread a while back where I tried to touch on the same thing with regards to Austrian economics. Considering the point you've raised, I think a similar issue applies here to libertarianism.

 

These philosophies and ideologies have real world impacts. Is Rand Paul (despite him not being a racist) really willing to tell citizens that they cannot be served due merely to being black, or gay, or democrat, or for wearing a green shirt? Is that how he defines freedom?

 

If so, it sure seems to me that his focus on freedom applies only to business, and not to humans.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Rand Paul. Grow a spine and take up for your beliefs. Or stop believing them.

Hear, hear!

 

 

I could carve out of an over-ripe banana a justice with more backbone than that.

~Teddy Roosevelt in regards to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[Double K]

Take this for what it is, totally unbiased comment, as I am not american and don't really follow either side of the political debate there.

 

However just from watching that youtube discussion posted earlier, the point that his comments made to me, is that you don't have to support these businesses if they behave this way.

 

There are 2 kinds of discrimination, you can discriminate against someone because they are in a minority, or you can discriminate in their favor because you fear how it would look because they are a minority.

 

Both are forms of discrimination.

 

Also from the comments that I read, everyone here said that it was black people that would be the target, and yet tailoring comments to only reflect on african americans is in itself a racial prejudice. White, yellow, short, disabled it doesn't matter any one of these groups can be the target of discrimination.

 

Rand said he didn't think discrimination of any kind was acceptable and this he did demonstrate through his comments and reactions.

[iNow]

However just from watching that youtube discussion posted earlier, the point that his comments made to me, is that you don't have to support these businesses if they behave this way.

<...>

Rand said he didn't think discrimination of any kind was acceptable and this he did demonstrate through his comments and reactions.

I understand that, and don't disagree with these points, DK, but this country has a history that cannot be ignored. These libertarian ideas cannot exist in a vacuum.

 

We had a country for centuries where there were no rules against discrimination. We decided collectively that the way things shook out were simply unacceptable to citizens in a free society, and I think we're better for it.

 

Again, I don't dispute the fact that Rand Paul thinks discrimination is unacceptable, nor do I dispute that people can choose not to frequent these businesses. What I dispute is the appropriateness of allowing that all to happen AGAIN due merely to a desire to hold to an ideological principle.

 

Use libertarian principles as your guide, but don't be so rigid with those principles that you ignore or disregard their real-world impact of their implementation. Some consequences really aren't acceptable to a free and enlightened society.

 

 

On top of that, I'm not very confident that he truly is rigid with his principles since he canceled appearance on a very fair national political program and is now back-peddling from his comments. So, on top of me disagreeing with him, now I don't trust him nor really respect him either because he seems like the type who will change his views at the first sign of challenge, obstacle, or backlash from the public... whereas he would NOT equally change those views as a result of a logical and well-reasoned counter argument showing their flaws.

[ParanoiA]

Now that's a rather interesting point. I opened a thread a while back where I tried to touch on the same thing with regards to Austrian economics. Considering the point you've raised' date=' I think a similar issue applies here to libertarianism.

 

These philosophies and ideologies have real world impacts. Is Rand Paul (despite him not being a racist) really willing to tell citizens that they cannot be served due merely to being black, or gay, or democrat, or for wearing a green shirt? Is that how he defines freedom?

 

If so, it sure seems to me that his focus on freedom applies only to business, and not to humans.[/quote']

 

No, it still applies to humans when we apply freedom to business. Business is just the label we give humans engaging in trade. They're the same people they were before they hung signs up and offered stuff for trade.

 

See, this ridiculous partition humans love to throw around here in America is "that's just business" - this notion that there's somehow a different code of ethics to follow when doing business as opposed to all other social activities. This is make believe bullshit. We invent this notion to make it ok to screw people legally, and then still sleep afterwards.

 

I don't know which one leads the other, but this archaic weasle logic has been taken seriously enough that we actually believe there's a difference between iNow the customer and iNow the business owner. There is no difference. It's the same iNow engaging in trade no differently than if we were to swap CD's at his house. We just make believe it's some higher order of activity in make believe land that somehow magically transcends standard ethics and morals and applications of liberty as they apply to everyone else.

 

Freedom to allow people in and out of your home should carry to everything you own, period. It doesn't matter if you're having a garage sale out of your house on a saturday or a permanent garage sale in a building that's not your home - it's the same thing.

 

Rand Paul was initially right, as is his father, as is the libertarian philosophy in being consistent with applications of liberty and one's freedom to use their property as they please. That means being as exclusive as one wishes to be: Guns, race, political affiliation, hair color, freckles, ugly toes, funny looking kids, marriage - whatever the hell they want, just like you do in your own home. That's liberty.

 

The real group missing the boat on this is the majority that actually believe these laws need to be in place. As if these laws are the only thing keeping white folks from economically isolating the black community. Give me a break. There's way more money to made being inclusive, in the major majority of businesses, and since everyone associates the rich as being greedy, I'm not sure why all of the sudden that greed would take a back seat to sticking it to the black man.

 

We've had these conversations before, it's too bad Rand Paul didn't stand up for this when he had the chance. It was a golden opportunity to show how the principles of libertarian philosophy generate a different, real kind of statesman. His father did that. And Rand articulates his views better than his father. What a shame.

 

Use libertarian principles as your guide, but don't be so rigid with those principles that you ignore or disregard their real-world impact of their implementation. Some consequences really aren't acceptable to a free and enlightened society.

 

I disagree with this vehemently. I don't believe one should be picking ideologies as one's guide - ideology is a conclusion not the query. So, one should be clear about liberty and where they stand, and then after observation they would figure out that the libertarian philsophy seems to match what they believe to be right and wrong.

 

So you're essentially asking libertarians to forget about the rigidity of right and wrong and join you and the majority in delusional exception thinking. That's weird, because that kind of expectation completely ignores and dismisses our insistence on consistency and honesty toward individual liberty.

 

No, I don't think anyone should follow their ideology as a guide, and then just chuck the parts that are hard to argue in the modern context. That modern society is so utterly lost and pathetic is not a good reason to join them and sacrifice what we know, or at least believe, to be absolutely right.

 

However just from watching that youtube discussion posted earlier' date=' the point that his comments made to me, is that you don't have to support these businesses if they behave this way.

 

There are 2 kinds of discrimination, you can discriminate against someone because they are in a minority, or you can discriminate in their favor because you fear how it would look because they are a minority.[/quote']

 

Correct, we just choose the latter discrimination method. It is no different than making excuses to abridge freedom of hateful speech. We either stick to a principle or not, otherwise there's no point in creating things like constitutions or pretending to be a nation of laws.

Edited May 25, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

this ridiculous partition

<...>

This is make believe bullshit.

<...>

this archaic weasle logic

<...>

somehow magically transcends

<...>

and join you and the majority in delusional exception thinking

<...>

modern society is so utterly lost and pathetic

Could I humbly request that we up the level of discourse a bit here, man?

 

 

 

The real group missing the boat on this is the majority that actually believe these laws need to be in place. As if these laws are the only thing keeping white folks from economically isolating the black community. Give me a break.

 

There exists a pretty significant amount of our history serving as empirical evidence of exactly that happening. What is it, exactly, that allows you to think that would not all happen again? I suggest it is, perhaps, your desire to find evidence in support of your worldview, and that this is directly contrary to what you've argued above that it is a conclusion and and not an approach.

 

Simply stating that it would not happen without these laws in place does not counter the evidence that it has already, and likely will again.

[jryan]

An interesting question I heard elsewhere and want to share here:

 

I was listening to a defense of the Rand Paul's position which was mostly boilerplate, but it had an interesting aspect to the defense that I have never considered before.

 

The speaker first stated the old adage that you can only judge your dedication to freedom of speech when the speech in question is abhorrent to you. He then asked whether that same rule applies to freedom of assembly, and by connection to discrimination.

 

My first thought was a resounding "No", but his argument only became more compelling. He theorized that discrimination is simply an aspect of freedom of assembly, and while we all discriminate every single day, racial, sexual and religious discrimination would qualify as those practices of assembly which most of us find abhorrent, but that we must defend if we truly wish to defend freedom of assembly.

 

It is an interesting argument. One I am not entirely sold on, but I must admit it is the closest anyone has come to convincing me to rethink my position on the topic.

[ParanoiA]

It's amazing what happens when you break through the thick layers of crap covering the mainstream's ideology, jryan. My advice is to continue thinking that through, and you will find excuse after excuse, exception after exception to their tired old arguments of legislating morality. Of course, then you see the conservatives doing it too...

 

Could I humbly request that we up the level of discourse a bit here, man?

 

Actually, I thought you'd appreciate most of those since the bulk of them were used to disparage the convenient out created by distinguishing a different code of ethics for people engaging in trade from people engagin in anything else. Somehow "trading stuff" magically transports us to another reality? I don't think so. Apparently you do.

 

There exists a pretty significant amount of our history serving as empirical evidence of exactly that happening. What is it' date=' exactly, that allows you to think that would not all happen again? I suggest it is, perhaps, your desire to find evidence in support of your worldview, and that this is directly contrary to what you've argued above that it is a conclusion and and not an approach.

 

Simply stating that it would not happen without these laws in place does not counter the evidence that it has already, and likely will again.[/quote']

 

There exists all of that still. We still create businesses of exclusivity. We still allow discrimination by skin color. The difference is, it's not extended to everyone, but rather a few government approved racial disciminatory businesses.

 

That's cronyism. That's institutionalized prejudice and racism. It's people using government to exclude themselves, while everyone else has to follow a different standard.

 

Let me get this straight, are you actually advocating this?

 

Most of the people of this country are not racists and will not restrict their consumer base and thus their income. They, instead, will all be equal to discriminate just as we do at home, with our friends and every other aspect of our lives. Engaging in trade doesn't transport us anywhere where our principles of liberty are suspended.

 

This is codified in our principle of free trade. It is our belief that engaging in trade, to better the lives of both traders, in which both perceive a gain, is stronger than hate and that some measure of voluntary mutual respect must exist in order for that to happen. That's why we want to be tangled up in trade with everyone on the planet, if we can. The more trading we do, and more we depend on each other, the more we transcend petty differences - and the more petty they become.

 

By the way, how do you think you get a body of congress to pass civil rights laws? You think a minority put them in office? You think a majority of racists accidentally elected a body of non-racist law makers that stabbed them in the back with civil rights laws?

Edited May 25, 2010 by ParanoiA

[jryan]

It's amazing what happens when you break through the thick layers of crap covering the mainstream's ideology, jryan. My advice is to continue thinking that through, and you will find excuse after excuse, exception after exception to their tired old arguments of legislating morality. Of course, then you see the conservatives doing it too...

 

Well, I am not wiling to let go of my immediate beliefs just yet because I know that historically such reasoning, while logically sound, is monstrous in practice. I still value actual individuals above the concept of individuals.

 

I still think the libertarian ideology (actual libertarian, not the billion pretender off-shoots) is an impractical ideology as it requires mechanical thought processes that analogue humanity is simply incapable of as a species.

 

It seems to me that the libertarian social proposition is something like replacing your automobile's breaks with more comprehensive auto-insurance.

[ParanoiA]

I still think the libertarian ideology (actual libertarian, not the billion pretender off-shoots) is an impractical ideology as it requires mechanical thought processes that analogue humanity is simply incapable of as a species.

 

Could you elaborate on this? Libertarian ideology actually just requires you to let go. Stop controlling everyone else's behavior. Stop pitting ideological classes of people against each other to force one, central, standardized output.

 

You're free to be as you want to be so long as you don't hurt others and their property. You don't get to control them and they don't get to control you. Each gets to live your respective lives the way you want. And with 50 states, you can each have, essentially, the government you like. Without all the centralization, you can have the variety of state governments that can accomodate the various types of people here.

 

At the end of the day, I want you and I to both be happy. I'm less inclined to convince you of living life under my kind of government, and more inclined for to enjoy the kind of government you want - just give me the same respect. That's libertarianism.

 

 

I was listening to Walter Williams at lunch time, and he asked a question in a way I really appreciated, although I didn't get to hear his answer: If you have one group of people that want government in their lives, safety nets and etc and you have one group of people who want liberty, and the government out of their lives, should they be made to fight each other?

 

What I hear in his question is more like...why do we require they fight and antagonize each other? Why is it so important to make one group submit to the other, or even both groups compromise at all - when they could each just have their way? Why are we so convinced every freaking issue that comes up needs to be fought and reconciled at the federal level with winners and losers.

 

Too much federalism. Way too much federalism in our culture.

[jackson33]

Should public restaurants be able to tell you whether or not you're allowed to bring guns inside?

 

I don't know if it's a great question (Pangloss), but I'm somewhat curious about the reason for asking it.

 

To my knowledge, who and where guns are allowed are controlled by the States. But yes, I would think the business owner could deny access, where otherwise the law would allow the idea, same with smoking or wearing a shirt or maybe shoes.

Edited May 25, 2010 by jackson33
Consecutive posts merged.

[ParanoiA]

I don't know if it's a great question (Pangloss), but I'm somewhat curious about the reason for asking it.

 

To my knowledge, who and where guns are allowed are controlled by the States. But yes, I would think the business owner could deny access, where otherwise the law would allow the idea, same with smoking or wearing a shirt or maybe shoes.

 

I think it's a terrific question.

 

Here's another one: What if the smokers had used government to force business owners to allow smoking? What if you had to deal with smokers in every restaraunt, by law?

 

Most would think that to be insanely ridiculous, but it's the same presumption of forcing others to use their own property by some other group's notion of fairness. The non-smokers are just lucky that the safety issue of smoking trumps any liberty issue of tolerance.

[jryan]

Could you elaborate on this? Libertarian ideology actually just requires you to let go. Stop controlling everyone else's behavior. Stop pitting ideological classes of people against each other to force one, central, standardized output.

 

Because the real world isn't as easy as that. You can't erase our instinct to horde and dominate with the wave of a magic wand.

 

You're free to be as you want to be so long as you don't hurt others and their property. You don't get to control them and they don't get to control you. Each gets to live your respective lives the way you want. And with 50 states, you can each have, essentially, the government you like. Without all the centralization, you can have the variety of state governments that can accomodate the various types of people here.

 

Well, again, it isn't as easy at that. A starving child in a prison camp in Sudan may want to be a U.S. Astronaut, but it almost certainly won't come to be. We are still working out the cooperative skills needed to feed ourselves much less expect some universal achievable dream.

 

As such Libertarianism is a lot like the book "The Secret"... for those who fortune smiles on it seems to work, ignore those left behind in the gutter. I do tend to care about the ones in the gutter as well and think there is a very real need to cooperate rather than insulate ourselves from such people.

 

We have tried a fairly libertarian period in this country and the results were not surprising. We can not help but hurt ourselves, and we find ways always within the confines of law, and without the confines. "Harm" itself is a word that is easy to say but even easier for a lawyer to define as it suits their client.

 

 

At the end of the day, I want you and I to both be happy. I'm less inclined to convince you of living life under my kind of government, and more inclined for to enjoy the kind of government you want - just give me the same respect. That's libertarianism.

 

I can't seem to unravel this statement. It seems like it is making a point, but the ideas don't seem to mesh. Rather than grasp at the intent, could you rephrase that? Not a knock on you, more of a knock on me.

 

I was listening to Walter Williams at lunch time, and he asked a question in a way I really appreciated, although I didn't get to hear his answer: If you have one group of people that want government in their lives, safety nets and etc and you have one group of people who want liberty, and the government out of their lives, should they be made to fight each other?

 

That is too simple a question, I think.

 

What I hear in his question is more like...why do we require they fight and antagonize each other? Why is it so important to make one group submit to the other, or even both groups compromise at all - when they could each just have their way? Why are we so convinced every freaking issue that comes up needs to be fought and reconciled at the federal level with winners and losers.

 

Because throughout history these two ideologies have been implemented with varying degrees, and the nanny nations invariably go broke and become envious of the wealth of those who are more free.

 

But on the other side of that we have the industrial revolution as an example of too much freedom ending in far less freedom for the majority of citizens. You and I both benefit daily from the protections provided us by our state and local and federal governments and I am not so quick to assume that absent those government organs we wouldn't revert back to late 1800s exploitations, many of which failed to meet the criteria for "harm" because they were easily categorized as "choice".

 

Too much federalism. Way too much federalism in our culture.

 

I don't disagree, but I see the libertarian knife cutting far to deep as it takes a wickedly cold and actuarial approach to individual success -- in that it cares only for the success and little for the individual.

[bascule]

I think it's a terrific question.

 

Here's another one: What if the smokers had used government to force business owners to allow smoking? What if you had to deal with smokers in every restaraunt, by law?

 

Most would think that to be insanely ridiculous, but it's the same presumption of forcing others to use their own property by some other group's notion of fairness. The non-smokers are just lucky that the safety issue of smoking trumps any liberty issue of tolerance.

 

Having separate areas for smokers which are either outdoors or have an isolated ventilation system was a great compromise. Unfortunately that approach went by the wayside in this state, and now smoking is banned outright from all restaurants.

[Double K]

Too much federalism. Way too much federalism in our culture.

 

Couldn't agree with you more!

 

This is every country (well... democratic country).

In fact it seems more often than not there is no real choice but an illusion of choice. The Australian 2 party government (Westminster system) is a great example of this, there is not a whole lot of difference between the 2 policies, but the opposition party simply kick up a furore and oppose everything, which seems to lead nowhere.

 

But I continually see more of a move toward centralisation and "globalisation" now before that detracts from the main topic I am neither anti globalisation or pro globalisation, I'm still fence sitting on that one...

 

Government seems so often to be for the 'lowest common denominator' so that laws and government protect us from the most ignorant and disturbed.

This doesn't seem too bad on the whole, but when the government starts becomming a nanny state (as we have in Australia) then democracy socialism and communism becomes a hazy blurred line. I think Rands topic is a very worthwhile debate, is America ready to have control given back to the people so they can determine their own fate?

 

I would like to think America has come a long way and this would be possible, but given human nature I think it's dangerous territory. I also think history would repeat itself, and there would be untold violence and chaos from the decision. In America's history though, north vs south, there were those who fought and believed in equal rights, as has happened throughout history, and in the end that ideal prevailed - maybe more faith should be placed in 'man' (fellow humans) than we currently do....

 

"A noble man compares and estimates himself by an idea which is higher than himself; and a mean man, by one lower than himself. The one produces aspiration; the other ambition, which is the way in which a vulgar man aspires."

Marcus Aurelius