MSNBC finds Rand Paul's weak spot
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Companies aren't people.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court.
I have and they're wrong. None of them interpret the Constitution. They've said as much in their briefs. Scalia and the supposedly originalists are full of themselves. In an interview for 60 minutes he basically said he was right because he was right. Now where does that leave you with for discussion and reason. At least people who read the bible for its literal interpretation read it as is. Scalia has said in his briefs comments about how allowing terrorists to not be held indefinitely was bad for national security. For someone concerned with interpreting the law nothing but it's interpreting should concern them. He's talked about before in other cases that consequences of their interpretation don't matter only the law. He's a hypocrite who doesn't see that he is as flawed as the rest of us. If we're going to go back to the sources of the text we better figure out a way to reanimate some bodies. I've read portions of a book called "An Incomplete Education, Revised Edition" clickety[^] about some of the early rulings and it's quite telling how arbitrary and meaningless the position of originalist is. The founders tried to stock the court with their like minded people from the beginning. That is why the whole activist judge argument is bunk to me.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Josh, you're not going to like this one, but just in case you missed it... CSS, you can safely watch this one... It has a video. Article at Gothamist.com[^] (New York City local news site). Alternate: Same video at the New York Times[^] First five minutes are introduction and backstory on Paul 05:00 is about when the actual interview starts Rand Paul was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show (MSNBC), and though he was quite eloquent and well-spoken at first (Well, that's a bit redundant and also redundant :) ), she backed him into one hell of a tight corner, concerning the balance between private ownership and civil rights. Basically, Maddow brought up the Civil Rights Act, trying to see if Paul would have supported it, and while he does his best to sidestep the issue, he eventually admits that he would not have supported it without changes, because of the part that outlaws discrimination in private venues that are open to the public. From there, she goes in for the kill. Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide. For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that. The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." That, however, is just not going to fly with the general public... I think when it comes time for the general election in Kentucky, he's going to get completely vaporized.
Proud to
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide.
TIME! I call bullshit. OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullshit. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now. Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullshit. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers. THIS is why he wants to repeal it, and I honestly don't know why Paul didn't just come out and say it. This is actually one of the BEST cases as to why libertarianism would work, because again, the free market will work for itself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that.
Yes, I agree with you, and honestly it hurts me to see that he can't be honest. Because, and rightly so, I'm with him on this one. He didn't explain WHY he'd support it, and he was going around the answer. I really don't know why, because many people would support him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
It's not just that, though that's part of it. I'd defend people's right to be bigot assholes, but I wouldn't ever patronize his establishment. And that is the whole point. You can't tell everyone what to do. It's funny that you think that everyone can't be bigots... that's never
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide.
TIME! I call bullshit. OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullshit. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now. Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullshit. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers. THIS is why he wants to repeal it, and I honestly don't know why Paul didn't just come out and say it. This is actually one of the BEST cases as to why libertarianism would work, because again, the free market will work for itself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that.
Yes, I agree with you, and honestly it hurts me to see that he can't be honest. Because, and rightly so, I'm with him on this one. He didn't explain WHY he'd support it, and he was going around the answer. I really don't know why, because many people would support him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
It's not just that, though that's part of it. I'd defend people's right to be bigot assholes, but I wouldn't ever patronize his establishment. And that is the whole point. You can't tell everyone what to do. It's funny that you think that everyone can't be bigots... that's never
josda1000 wrote:
Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullsh*t. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers.
That's the ideal situation, and if this was really the case, I would agree with you. In a more diversified area (Big cities, mostly), this would probably work perfectly. What about, though, those parts of the midwest where it's still almost 100% white? I think it's pretty clear that racism is not gone, and I think certain areas would probably accept that kind of discrimination. And what happens when we find a new way to categorize people? First it was by skin color, then nationality, then sexual orientation... What's next? Even today, the LGBT community is still discriminated against. Ignoring the fact that it's usually impossible to identify them on sight, do you think a "No gays allowed" sign would spark nearly as much outrage as a "No blacks allowed" one? I think the more religious areas would even welcome it, if it wasn't illegal. Speaking of religion, what if a certain religion (Islam, for example, given current sentiments) because undesirable? One business decides to exclude Muslims, and others follow suit... Depending on the area, they might actually find more support than objections... You can see how this could go... See, the Libertarian philosophy depends on people being generally "good", at least to the degree that "bad" practices would put a business at a disadvantage. But as others have stated in this thread, that just isn't always the case.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide.
TIME! I call bullshit. OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullshit. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now. Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullshit. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers. THIS is why he wants to repeal it, and I honestly don't know why Paul didn't just come out and say it. This is actually one of the BEST cases as to why libertarianism would work, because again, the free market will work for itself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that.
Yes, I agree with you, and honestly it hurts me to see that he can't be honest. Because, and rightly so, I'm with him on this one. He didn't explain WHY he'd support it, and he was going around the answer. I really don't know why, because many people would support him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
It's not just that, though that's part of it. I'd defend people's right to be bigot assholes, but I wouldn't ever patronize his establishment. And that is the whole point. You can't tell everyone what to do. It's funny that you think that everyone can't be bigots... that's never
josda1000 wrote:
OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullsh*t. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now.
A lot do, and those angry young people who opposed it are now sitting in seats of power wishing they could turn back the clock. I say this as I'm dealing with my grandfather on this issue, he seems perfectly willing to cut ties with his only grandson rather than accept his engagement to a black woman. In the three years we've been together, engaged for two of them, he has spoken one word to her and heard none from her. Is he in the minority, yes, however I'm also kissing a significant portion of my family's security goodbye should he decide to completely cut ties with me. He is far from alone, and most of them are more than content to push around the law as much as possible to get things their way, and they're generally somewhere that they can do something about it. You assume everyone has a choice in what establishments they patronize, that's not always true, and generally when it isn't true you'll find the kind of assholes who'd happily throw up that no blacks sign.
-
I have and they're wrong. None of them interpret the Constitution. They've said as much in their briefs. Scalia and the supposedly originalists are full of themselves. In an interview for 60 minutes he basically said he was right because he was right. Now where does that leave you with for discussion and reason. At least people who read the bible for its literal interpretation read it as is. Scalia has said in his briefs comments about how allowing terrorists to not be held indefinitely was bad for national security. For someone concerned with interpreting the law nothing but it's interpreting should concern them. He's talked about before in other cases that consequences of their interpretation don't matter only the law. He's a hypocrite who doesn't see that he is as flawed as the rest of us. If we're going to go back to the sources of the text we better figure out a way to reanimate some bodies. I've read portions of a book called "An Incomplete Education, Revised Edition" clickety[^] about some of the early rulings and it's quite telling how arbitrary and meaningless the position of originalist is. The founders tried to stock the court with their like minded people from the beginning. That is why the whole activist judge argument is bunk to me.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
I agree with you here, and I also saw the 60 minutes interview. It seems to me that in the world we live, it really doesn't matter if you're right. If your opinion or "world view" is in the small minority, people will consider you as a nut job, an idiot, or fill-in-the-blank. So, if the Supreme Court says that corporations are people then I guess they are, and if they say the sky is pink with polka dots then that's what is it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullsh*t. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers.
That's the ideal situation, and if this was really the case, I would agree with you. In a more diversified area (Big cities, mostly), this would probably work perfectly. What about, though, those parts of the midwest where it's still almost 100% white? I think it's pretty clear that racism is not gone, and I think certain areas would probably accept that kind of discrimination. And what happens when we find a new way to categorize people? First it was by skin color, then nationality, then sexual orientation... What's next? Even today, the LGBT community is still discriminated against. Ignoring the fact that it's usually impossible to identify them on sight, do you think a "No gays allowed" sign would spark nearly as much outrage as a "No blacks allowed" one? I think the more religious areas would even welcome it, if it wasn't illegal. Speaking of religion, what if a certain religion (Islam, for example, given current sentiments) because undesirable? One business decides to exclude Muslims, and others follow suit... Depending on the area, they might actually find more support than objections... You can see how this could go... See, the Libertarian philosophy depends on people being generally "good", at least to the degree that "bad" practices would put a business at a disadvantage. But as others have stated in this thread, that just isn't always the case.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the ideal situation, and if this was really the case, I would agree with you. In a more diversified area (Big cities, mostly), this would probably work perfectly. What about, though, those parts of the midwest where it's still almost 100% white? I think it's pretty clear that racism is not gone, and I think certain areas would probably accept that kind of discrimination.
I actually agree with you here. But that's when local laws are much more preferable than federal laws. And this is another reason for the united states working for so long... you can "vote with your feet". If you don't like the laws in Alabama, move to Massachusetts. If you don't like New Jersey, try Arizona. You won't be able to fix everybody... so let people live the way they want to live. Maine is still extremely white... are they racists too? Or is it just that more people congregated up there because they just want to live a simple life? Stop putting labels on everyone. Let people live they way they will, mattering not whether they live by your rules or theirs. People naturally come to the concept of liberty, why? Because they want to be left alone.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what happens when we find a new way to categorize people? First it was by skin color, then nationality, then sexual orientation... What's next? Even today, the LGBT community is still discriminated against. Ignoring the fact that it's usually impossible to identify them on sight, do you think a "No gays allowed" sign would spark nearly as much outrage as a "No blacks allowed" one? I think the more religious areas would even welcome it, if it wasn't illegal.
More religious areas may adopt such a standard, true. However, that just means that the gays move to a place like Massachusetts! Let them come, big deal! Massachusetts has adopted a standard quite different from the norm, saying that gays can marry if they so choose, and I have to heartily agree with such a thing. The problem is that it was enacted with more legislation. So the problem is that the market didn't take care of itself, they had to make it society's norm through legislation. Society can't be promoted through the government, it eventually won't work. The market takes care of itself through boycotting, or lack of money flowing to a business by any means. It just does work that way. BUT! If it does work for a certain society to ban certai
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide.
TIME! I call bullshit. OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullshit. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now. Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullshit. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers. THIS is why he wants to repeal it, and I honestly don't know why Paul didn't just come out and say it. This is actually one of the BEST cases as to why libertarianism would work, because again, the free market will work for itself.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that.
Yes, I agree with you, and honestly it hurts me to see that he can't be honest. Because, and rightly so, I'm with him on this one. He didn't explain WHY he'd support it, and he was going around the answer. I really don't know why, because many people would support him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."
It's not just that, though that's part of it. I'd defend people's right to be bigot assholes, but I wouldn't ever patronize his establishment. And that is the whole point. You can't tell everyone what to do. It's funny that you think that everyone can't be bigots... that's never
josda1000 wrote:
never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...
I'm not calling you a liar, but I would try, for example, to not point out I have Indian friends when I say that I don't discriminate against Indians ( as I am accused of doing b/c of how I talk to the stupid ones ). Because, it sounds like you're justifying yourself. I don't have Indian friends. I have friends who happen to be Indian.
josda1000 wrote:
So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers.
I'm not sure this is going to be true, esp in the US where there's huge niche markets. There's enough racists out there for that to work as a ploy to get dedicated clients IMO.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
OK Fine I just had to say that I call bullsh*t. BUT! I defend Paul's point, because you actually MISS the point. The point is pretty simple, especially where it's now NOT the sixties, and people think a lot differently now.
A lot do, and those angry young people who opposed it are now sitting in seats of power wishing they could turn back the clock. I say this as I'm dealing with my grandfather on this issue, he seems perfectly willing to cut ties with his only grandson rather than accept his engagement to a black woman. In the three years we've been together, engaged for two of them, he has spoken one word to her and heard none from her. Is he in the minority, yes, however I'm also kissing a significant portion of my family's security goodbye should he decide to completely cut ties with me. He is far from alone, and most of them are more than content to push around the law as much as possible to get things their way, and they're generally somewhere that they can do something about it. You assume everyone has a choice in what establishments they patronize, that's not always true, and generally when it isn't true you'll find the kind of assholes who'd happily throw up that no blacks sign.
Distind wrote:
I say this as I'm dealing with my grandfather on this issue, he seems perfectly willing to cut ties with his only grandson rather than accept his engagement to a black woman. In the three years we've been together, engaged for two of them, he has spoken one word to her and heard none from her.
My step father in law is very racist too. It's easy to assume it's not there anymore, but it is. If Donna died, I think I'd like to marry a black woman, just to confront him on it. Not that that would be fair on her, I guess.
Distind wrote:
You assume everyone has a choice in what establishments they patronize, that's not always true, and generally when it isn't true you'll find the kind of assholes who'd happily throw up that no blacks sign.
And even if it's only open for a month, letting it open sends a message that society condones his viewpoint, at least to some degree.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's the ideal situation, and if this was really the case, I would agree with you. In a more diversified area (Big cities, mostly), this would probably work perfectly. What about, though, those parts of the midwest where it's still almost 100% white? I think it's pretty clear that racism is not gone, and I think certain areas would probably accept that kind of discrimination.
I actually agree with you here. But that's when local laws are much more preferable than federal laws. And this is another reason for the united states working for so long... you can "vote with your feet". If you don't like the laws in Alabama, move to Massachusetts. If you don't like New Jersey, try Arizona. You won't be able to fix everybody... so let people live the way they want to live. Maine is still extremely white... are they racists too? Or is it just that more people congregated up there because they just want to live a simple life? Stop putting labels on everyone. Let people live they way they will, mattering not whether they live by your rules or theirs. People naturally come to the concept of liberty, why? Because they want to be left alone.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And what happens when we find a new way to categorize people? First it was by skin color, then nationality, then sexual orientation... What's next? Even today, the LGBT community is still discriminated against. Ignoring the fact that it's usually impossible to identify them on sight, do you think a "No gays allowed" sign would spark nearly as much outrage as a "No blacks allowed" one? I think the more religious areas would even welcome it, if it wasn't illegal.
More religious areas may adopt such a standard, true. However, that just means that the gays move to a place like Massachusetts! Let them come, big deal! Massachusetts has adopted a standard quite different from the norm, saying that gays can marry if they so choose, and I have to heartily agree with such a thing. The problem is that it was enacted with more legislation. So the problem is that the market didn't take care of itself, they had to make it society's norm through legislation. Society can't be promoted through the government, it eventually won't work. The market takes care of itself through boycotting, or lack of money flowing to a business by any means. It just does work that way. BUT! If it does work for a certain society to ban certai
josda1000 wrote:
More religious areas may adopt such a standard, true. However, that just means that the gays move to a place like Massachusetts
This doesn't work on a large scale, though. It starts with "You can't eat here. Try the place next door", to "Try a few blocks down"... "Try another city"... "Another state"... If that kind of discrimination becomes popular, it starts to give the impression that it's "acceptable," and that leads to even more discrimination. I hear a lot of criticism of "groupthink," but that's how the general public tends to act. If one city became a "Hetero Zone," how long do you think it would take for that idea to spread? You may be right, in that there'd always be some place for them to go... And then where are we? Segregation. We just undid a half-century of progress. Paul's view is that only the public sector should outlaw discrimination... So your town government is legally obligated not to discriminate. That's all well and good, but if the local businesses decide to stop serving your particular minority, you can't really LIVE there, so you can no longer WORK there, even at a government job. See, I can generally agree with parts of the Libertarian philosophy, but I just don't think it works when you get to the worst parts of human nature. The "Us and Them" mindset is just too ingrained, and sometimes you need to apply a force to counter that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
Suppose I start a business, and I discriminate towards blacks (never would happen, I mean, I've got black friends and have had a couple black girlfriends too, but for the sake of argument...). I open a store and have a sign outside stating the bullsh*t. Well, white people, mexicans, etc would actually boycott my business. So after probably a month, I'd fold, because of a lack of customers.
That's the ideal situation, and if this was really the case, I would agree with you. In a more diversified area (Big cities, mostly), this would probably work perfectly. What about, though, those parts of the midwest where it's still almost 100% white? I think it's pretty clear that racism is not gone, and I think certain areas would probably accept that kind of discrimination. And what happens when we find a new way to categorize people? First it was by skin color, then nationality, then sexual orientation... What's next? Even today, the LGBT community is still discriminated against. Ignoring the fact that it's usually impossible to identify them on sight, do you think a "No gays allowed" sign would spark nearly as much outrage as a "No blacks allowed" one? I think the more religious areas would even welcome it, if it wasn't illegal. Speaking of religion, what if a certain religion (Islam, for example, given current sentiments) because undesirable? One business decides to exclude Muslims, and others follow suit... Depending on the area, they might actually find more support than objections... You can see how this could go... See, the Libertarian philosophy depends on people being generally "good", at least to the degree that "bad" practices would put a business at a disadvantage. But as others have stated in this thread, that just isn't always the case.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Speaking of religion, what if a certain religion (Islam, for example, given current sentiments) because undesirable? One business decides to exclude Muslims, and others follow suit... Depending on the area, they might actually find more support than objections... You can see how this could go...
Or if you want a solid historic example that's becoming more and more ironic recently check out the history of the Mormons. Now, I grew up around where they started, it sits relatively close to the center of NY. In a combination of private and governmental harassment and discrimination they were chased(and more than once shot at, it was still legal to shoot Mormons in at least one state till recently) out to Utah. Where we declared war on them, at least partially because of a slaughter of a number of US Settlers passing through their claimed territory. Mind you they claim to have been no part of it, but they claim a lot of things. Of course now Mormons go about oppressing others based on their beliefs(with their favorite targets former Mormons and homosexuals), if they didn't learn the lesson of the pain of being hated I don't hold much hope for humanity as a whole. But the market certainly didn't save them then and it has done remarkably little to them in turn for their own actions.
-
Precisely my thoughts... I do think that in most cases, it's better for the government to keep their hands out of private enterprise. In some situations, though, and this is one of them, I think the government NEEDS to step in. In modern times, he might have an argument, saying that a practice like that would be halted on its own, without government action (Public protest, landlords kicking them out, etc), because of the insanely-fast spread of information and the ease of transportation (The ACLU would have people there within hours of it becoming public)... Still, if it ever caught on despite opposition, we'd be back to square one. But in the 60s? When that kind of practice was "acceptable" in the eyes of the general public (Or at least, the majority)? No way... The government intervention was DEFINITELY necessary. Of course, that's just my two cents.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the government NEEDS to step in.
Why because you have been brought up to shiver and quake at the word racist?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
One of the biggest holes in libertarian thinking, not realizing or acknowledging that some people are total assholes and will gladly stomp on other people's rights and even their own economic good for pointless hatred or even simple bias. Though to be honest I agree with the right to say whatever you think, but to exclude someone from a public enterprise without any real justification is harmful to everyone involved. A small bit of tolerance(no one says they have to like them) and they get what they need/want and you get paid. The horror.
Distind wrote:
One of the biggest holes in libertarian thinking, not realizing or acknowledging that some people are total assholes and will gladly stomp on other people's rights
You don't have a right to walk into a business and demand service.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Josh, you're not going to like this one, but just in case you missed it... CSS, you can safely watch this one... It has a video. Article at Gothamist.com[^] (New York City local news site). Alternate: Same video at the New York Times[^] First five minutes are introduction and backstory on Paul 05:00 is about when the actual interview starts Rand Paul was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow show (MSNBC), and though he was quite eloquent and well-spoken at first (Well, that's a bit redundant and also redundant :) ), she backed him into one hell of a tight corner, concerning the balance between private ownership and civil rights. Basically, Maddow brought up the Civil Rights Act, trying to see if Paul would have supported it, and while he does his best to sidestep the issue, he eventually admits that he would not have supported it without changes, because of the part that outlaws discrimination in private venues that are open to the public. From there, she goes in for the kill. Now, I understand Paul's position on this, and it's consistent with the Libertarian/Tea Party agenda. He opposes anything that puts limitations on private enterprise. In this case, that means he would support a privately-owned company's right to openly discriminate against the minority of their choosing. Again, I understand his point of view (I don't agree with it, but I understand it), but this is pretty much political suicide. For the entire 15 minutes of the actual interview, Maddow TRIES to get an honest answer about this issue (If a private company wanted to post a "No blacks allowed" sign, would you support their right to do so?) Obviously, his answer is "Yes," but he couldn't come out and say that. The Libertarian view here seems to pretty much follow the old quote... "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." That, however, is just not going to fly with the general public... I think when it comes time for the general election in Kentucky, he's going to get completely vaporized.
Proud to
A black person doesn't want to walk into a racist restaurant anyways, what kind of service would he get? A black person would rather go to his jazz joint with his peers, or a non racist restaurant. The government doesn't have the right to tell anyone how to run their business.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Distind wrote:
One of the biggest holes in libertarian thinking, not realizing or acknowledging that some people are total assholes and will gladly stomp on other people's rights
You don't have a right to walk into a business and demand service.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
A black person doesn't want to walk into a racist restaurant anyways, what kind of service would he get? A black person would rather go to his jazz joint with his peers, or a non racist restaurant. The government doesn't have the right to tell anyone how to run their business.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim? A legitimate reason, sure, you're brown is not a legitimate reason. You have the right to be an idiot, not the right to inflict your idiocy on others.
Distind wrote:
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim?
Yes, I could close down shop and only serve two people of my choosing. I could kick everybody out if I want (so as long as they got the goods and serviced that they paid for). Here is an example, let's say I'm running a computer repair service down in my basement, and I decided to not fix a guys computer because the computer stunk or he was a jackass or he just plain annoys the hell out of me, or for any other reason that I can think of. I have that right.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
And about here is where I wonder if you've ever actually met a black person or if you operate solely off stereotypes.
Yes I have, I've worked with them. Perhaps instead of a jazz joint I should have said a The Pimpin' Club that plays Lil' Wayne.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Distind wrote:
And you have the right to deny someone service based on nothing but your own whim?
Yes, I could close down shop and only serve two people of my choosing. I could kick everybody out if I want (so as long as they got the goods and serviced that they paid for). Here is an example, let's say I'm running a computer repair service down in my basement, and I decided to not fix a guys computer because the computer stunk or he was a jackass or he just plain annoys the hell out of me, or for any other reason that I can think of. I have that right.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Computer repair, why not. Not the problem case, but still stupid. Let's say you're the only pharmacy in the area, there's someone who may well wind up dead before reaching the next one but they fit your arbitrary race delimitation on who you will serve. Should I file the negligent homicide charges now, or can you see where allowing business to discriminate can get problematic?
-
Yes I have, I've worked with them. Perhaps instead of a jazz joint I should have said a The Pimpin' Club that plays Lil' Wayne.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Computer repair, why not. Not the problem case, but still stupid. Let's say you're the only pharmacy in the area, there's someone who may well wind up dead before reaching the next one but they fit your arbitrary race delimitation on who you will serve. Should I file the negligent homicide charges now, or can you see where allowing business to discriminate can get problematic?
Distind wrote:
Should I file the negligent homicide charges now
Perhaps, but you can't (or shouldn't) be allowed to file some racism charge.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]