You do realize that Rand is the only major candidate for Senate that supports the abolition of the most oppressive policy this government has towards black males, right?
I believe since I-95 is public property then every rest stop must be open to all. Basically, the following businesses must not be able to discriminate IMO. 1) Businesses where no other option exists or where personal choice is removed from the situations such as remote clinics, hospitals of all kinds. 2) Federal or State licensed facilities, including realtors 3) Businesses on Federal or state property 4) Businesses that are either multi state chains or multi state franchises 5) Businesses that advertise on interstate medium, including the internet If you don't fit into any of those categories, congratulations. You can be a scumbag. But you must post your prejudices at the door.
Re: Rand Paul Deserves His Own Thread A real libertarian would say that BP has to pay for every cent of the repair. Rand's half assing it.
It's only the very rare road that is not public property. And pretty much all businesses front public roads. So being located on a public road cannot possibly be the criteria you're proposing. What is the criteria for this I-95 bit? What about businesses that use public utilities and that sort of thing? What about service stations that are required to submit to inspection by various governmental departments of weights and measures? What about the only grocery store in town? And how, exactly, do you propose that shop-owners with an all-white policy enforce that policy? Should they call the police to come an arrest people for shopping while black? If so, should we prohibit discrimination by businesses that might one day require the services of the public, governmental body known as the police department?
I'm talking about public rest stops incorporated into the highway. Like Maryland House. Not a factor Usually county so exempt. But generally a franchise so included. How big is the town and how far is the walmart? Arrest them for trespass. And no it should not be prohibited as the police already protect those who the disagree with on a regular basis.
Ah, public land. So it's sort of moot for you. But what about I-5 in California. There are a handful of public rest-stops, but very few and all the gas stations are on private property. What about those? Or, for that matter, what about I-10 pretty much anywhere west of Arkansas? Why not? Just like with public roads, these are businesses that exist because of public resources and continue to benefit from public resources. Why should public resources be used to facilitate and to perpetuate racist institutions? County is still public. So why exempt? What is the criteria for exempting franchises? Why is that relevant? Why, on your account, should a store owner in an isolated rural town not have the same freedom to choose his clientele as the owner of a store in a more populous area? What if it's an isolated town with two grocery stores and both stores, formally or informally, agree to form a whites only cartel? So you believe public money should be used to enforce racism and to perpetuate racist institutions? Disagreement is not the issue. State enforced racism is. Do you believe in state enforced racism?
So instead of a simple blanket rule that forbids discrimination, we'd have a complicated set of regulations in its place. Furthermore, the legal status of each grocery store would change depending on the success/failure of nearby stores. That should be easy to enforce.
Here's the one thing I don't get about the public vs private property, public institution vs private institution etc type of differentiation. No place in america is truly free of government support. Every lunch counter serves food that was produced with government support. Every business is built upon by the foundation of the strong american economic system. Why is the american economic system foundation so strong - why are businesses able to borrow at low rates compared to Greece? Why does every property/business owner go to sleep at night knowing they have the full weight of american law protecting their property - that federally sponsored fire departments will put out a fire on their property, and federally sponsored police will show up and disperse a mob trying to burn down or steal property? Why are we living under the constitution, and not living under Maoist/Stalinist/Socialist controls? Because the american government steps up and makes sure Castro hasn't taken over Florida. Because the american government ensures our economy is top-notch, and has applied sound rules to make businesses prosper. When you think about it - the federal government does loads of things to ensure the rights of property/business owners. And so if the federal government says, with the will of the people, you can't discriminate in housing/service based on gender, race, etc against fellow americans - why is that unfair? Government 100% allows discrimination based on many things (No shirt, no shoes, no service) That's because an american can go home and come back with a shirt and shoes. But an american with black skin can't go home and change their parentage, nor can a woman go home and change their sex. But I see no problem with the government saying we fought wars and sacrificed thousands of americans to ensure your business isn't subject to Stalinist rules - and in return - you can't discriminate against fellow americans based on x,y,z. Every american has the benefits of the foundation our government provides. Ergo, when the government passes a law that is deemed in accordance with the constitution - then we have to live with it - or try to gain enough support to change the law. Libertarians are not so special that they can be exempt.
You're insane if you think Matt in the Hat is wrong on that. Look at the statistics. If you wanted to invent a program whose real goal was to terrorize minorities but you couldn't state that overtly so you technically apply it to everyone, it would be hard to beat the War on Drugs. Rand Paul would end that. Would any other Senator? What do you think is more likely to affect you?
The other thing that bothers me the most about a hardcore libertarian potentially becoming a senator - every senator has exceptional power compared to a hose representative. I have no problem with Ron Paul as Texas rep. I may think he has crazy ideas, but until he can convince a few hundred other representatives - he is essentially powerless. But senators get all sorts of exceptional perks - secret holds, nominee holds, etc. One senator can really put a hurting on effective government. Say Paul decides he doesn't like the IRS - so places a long hold on a new IRS commissioner being able to do their job. Ditto for the justice department, or even the secretary of defense. One nutjob senator can do so. That's why a hardcore libertarian senator is way too dangerous to countenance - considering the powers allocated to individual senators, it is way too dangerous to have a loose cannon whose views represent <5% of the country get the ability to shutdown the government.
Um, Mr. Niemoller was talking about the government. That's a key distinction here. It's a great quote, no doubt about it, but it doesn't apply.
Let's say there's a bill to end the War on Iraq. But it can't pass because John McCain puts a hold on it. Let's say there's a bill to protect civil liberties, but Frank Lautenberg places a hold on it. There are people in the Senate now who oppose the IRS. There are people now who disagree with things the Justice or Defense Department too. Somehow the country still functions. Besides, holds can be overridden.
Rand Paul has a deep held philosophical belief. He does not believe the Federal government has the right to tell a business or a private group what they can do internally. No press statement during a campaign after intense media scrutiny that's operative phrase is that "I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964" will change that. If there was a vote to repeal Title II of the Civil Rights Act he's voting yes. I commend him for honestly and logically extolling a position that undergrids the thinking of the far right. I like him far more than the closet racists who use his type of extremism to support their hatred. Or the closet corporatists looking to redistribute wealth and power upwards. He's more wrong than they are but at least he can do it with integrity (which is as we speak going out the window now that his campaign is going to have him spinning like a typical politician to get elected). The fact that we can now debate the insanity of the right's positions is a goo thing for America. If Paul wins and the Dems still have 50 votes I hope they use it as an excuse to enact Senate procedural reform at the start of the next congress.
Which isn't what Bob said. I don't think Paul is a hard right racist. I think he's a libertarian loon. Those aren't the same thing.
"Kruger"Rand Paul would allow businesses to discriminate based on race. Everything else is inconsequential.
His laissez-faire economic and federal role views are the views of the far right. I think they adopt them as a means to an end but they still are against any substantive federal regulatory role.
Exactly. As fodder for drunken, pizza fueled bull sessions, libertarianism is somewhat interesting. As a governing philosophy, it's as divorced from reality as basing your tax system on unicorns who shit gold bullion. You know, dude, you, of all people that frequent this forum, should really shut the ******** up about insanity. McCain and Lautenberg aren't raving lunatics.
And his views on civil liberties and social freedom are to the left of almost all the Democrats on the national scene.
Only because they're both too old to do much raving. Next time I'll use younger people for my examples. New Jersey-ite Murray Sabrin comments: A follow-up for the legal people around here. If I own a business, could I indeed post a sign that says "The Holocaust Never Happened" on my business, as long as I didn't turn Jewish people away?