They were mocked into submission in Denver, it was awesomely funny to watch. They tried to do a stupid KKK meeting on Martin Luther King, Jr's holiday and were mocked out of public view. I'm sure they're blaming it on Affirmative Action as I type...
Rand Paul Wins Primary!
- Thread starter Adam Weinberg
- Start date
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
A.} That's not true, regulation that protects 3rd parties is supported by nearly all Libertarians.
B.} Obamas Budgets and Increasing size of Government putting us on the Greek path within the next 25 years is a HELL of alot more nutty.
What do you mean by third-parties? Third-parties to what, exactly? What types of regulations are you talking about?
Believing that the United States are Greece are remotely similar in this regard is a HELL of a lot more nutty than Obama's budgets.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
what about 2nd party?
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
As far as third paties I'll make a simple analogy. The Government does have the right to regulate I have proper working brakes on my car so I don't injure a 3rd party. They do not have the right to regulate my car have a seat belt or that I wear one.
The 2nd part you are just factually wrong. Our debt situation if it is not cleaned up we will have the same debt ratios that Greece did when it imploded in around 25 years. The nutjobs are the ones who claim 5 years from now or whatever. 25 years is simply an economic fact.
I believe the question was about regulation of private enterprise, not seat belt laws. Can you give an example that is relevant to the question?
On this we'll simply have to agree to disagree.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
LOL, there is no agree to disagree as much as you can agree to disagree that 2+2 = 4. It's an economic fact if we run the types of Deficits we have we will have the same debt ratios as Greece when it imploded in about 25 years.
Also, Car Makers are Private Enterprise and they are regulated on Brakes and Seat Belts. If that's too tough for you to process I'm sorry but I'm not going to give examples all day till you get it.
OK, I suppose we can agree that if we run deficits of the type we are currently running in 25 years we will have insanely high debt ratios. I guess I simply take issue with the assumption that we will run such high deficits for the next 25 years.
OK, so applying this principle to anti-discrimination laws, do black people qualify as third-parties? I mean, there is obvious economic harm to black people if they are barred from participating in the market in the first instance. Isn't government regulation to prevent the economic harm to people excluded from the marketplace defensible on libertarian principles? If so, what's the story with your boy?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Another thing we could do to enhance collections is stimulate domestic business with protectionist measures.
You zealots want to both send all the jobs overseas AND gut the government.
Where does that leave the people?
That's not what I get.
To give an example, as a libertarian I believe the government should enforce laws against fraudulent commercial acts. I would not complain much if we took Madoff, the french guy from Goldman Sachs (and maybe some other execs there) and Paulson and hung them by their ankles, after a fair trial and conviction. We should go after all their assets too, even those they've hidden with family members. Their crimes are very severe in the amount of damage done and they should be brought to justice.
Instead the Democrats in power, seem only interested in responding by creating more regulations (that the crooks will find away around) and creating government jobs.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
The debt ratios could be worse than they are now when the baby boomer generation retires and the entitlement system increases as a percentage. Yeah, we won't be like Greece if we actually cut spending, entitlements and the economy can get much better long term growth. I'm not confident we will do this.
2nd.} I don't agree with Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act but I don't agree with any politician on everything and I agree with him more and trust him more than the standard fare.
Fair enough. How do you defend your position on the CRA from a libertarian perspective? Do you find Paul's position at all troubling?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
its not very difficult to distinguish Pauls position on the CRA. According to the constitution, the 14th Amendment prohibits any discrimination and already allows the federal government to take action against states or business' that employ racial discrimination. The CRA isn't necessary to handle that responsibility.
You asked me and I answered. Any response? :feeling neglected:
Well, in the first instance, I don't buy the argument that what was achieved through the Civil Rights Act would have been achieved nevertheless. I think that because of the Civil Rights Act and other similar laws the acceptance of racism has declined.
Second, I do not think a libertarian position requires one to oppose prohibitions of racial discrimination by private enterprise and I do not buy the idea that the principled libertarian position is that the CRA was an inappropriate use of government power. As I explained above, the CRA is defensible from a libertarian perspective on several grounds, not least of which is the economic harm attendant to black people being excluded from the marketplace entirely.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do you not think it silly to have to write a law to enforce another law?
I would not argue it had no positive effect on that, but that influence was not that significant. It also creates some of the problems of backlash that I mentioned.
I don't disagree. You could be a libertarian and support much if not all of the CRA (I mentioned, the limits on government discrimination are fine). Further, I don't think the harm done by giving the government that power is all that great, either. The racist attempts to use it to ban black culture are just the ramblings of a few hooded morons and will come to nothing.
So, I would not choose to die on that hill. That is, it is way down my list of priorities and I think Rand may be making a mistake to make such an issue of it. I don't agree with Rand or his father on everything, though, and some of their political acts make me a little weary. Honestly, I have bigger problems with both on other issues.
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
I don't find Pauls position troubling because it's not 1964 anymore and don't find it to be a huge issue in 2010 and it won't ever get repealed anyway.
As far as legal discrimination I don't agree with it the same way as I don't agree you can fraud someone. They both essentially take away anothers Freedom and Choices.
nigel, that would be a libertarian basis of support for laws banning private discrimination. My position really is not that much different.
I don't agree with discrimination to exclude minorities. I don't have a problem with minorities discriminating to avoid being overwhelmed by the will of the majority (e.g., minority beauty pageants). The intentions and the effects are quite different.
Though, I don't fully support laws banning private discrimination even to exclude minorities, I won't support it or refrain from denouncing it. It's wrong, but just because it is wrong does not mean it should be illegal.
I am confident that most Americans agree with me that private discrimination to exclude minorities is wrong and would punish it in the market. If they did not agree, the CRA would never have passed or would have been overturned or repealed by now. That's part of the reason why I would not make an issue of it because some racist might get the wrong idea and think I am on his side or someone like you, who I am probably far closer to on the morality of discrimination, might assume the same.
You can say it is some sort of closet racism if you want. nAHZi and the other mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers already call me racist. Go ahead and join them if you want (not implying you are... you seem to be giving it a fair hearing). But, you will be wrong.