MSNBC finds Rand Paul's weak spot
-
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[^]
-
Trafficing in stereotypes is what he does.
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 saw this yesterday and was going to say something but it doesn't really matter. Libertarian points of view make angels out of man and we all know that isn't true. Supposedly there is a difference between government employed citizens and private sector employed citizens when it comes to who is allowed to trounce rights or at least create a false sense of outrage by the citizenry. It's not okay for government, but its okay for companies to do it. So why is it okay for a company to discriminate and not the government? Companies aren't people. A friend of mine would routinely have a political donation subtracted from his paycheck for the company to send to it's Washington b@tch. As near as I can tell not illegal. The company would then give them the same amount as a bonus the next paycheck for some BS reason. I've worked for a company in the financial services sector who wanted to put a message to all their customers on whether or not they liked their service and to have it send a message to their congressmen and senators. Again not illegal, but certainly unethical. I've never lived in Kentucky before so I have no idea what kind of tolerance for this sort of thing is possible, but for people whose life is just fine they're not going to care.
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_
wolfbinary wrote:
Supposedly there is a difference between government employed citizens and private sector employed citizens when it comes to who is allowed to trounce rights or at least create a false sense of outrage by the citizenry. It's not okay for government, but its okay for companies to do it. So why is it okay for a company to discriminate and not the government?
The differences? The government compels you to pay them so they have to provide the required services. The Constitution compels how gov can act, but generally not individuals. If I am a sole proprietor, I am the company. It is mine, the building is mine, the goods are mine. Are you saying that I don't have the right to control who I let on my property?
wolfbinary wrote:
Companies aren't people.
You got that right. Companies do not have freedom of political speech. Each of the owners and employees do.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
It at least brings his ignorant stereotypes up to date tho
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.