No, I'm not saying you're racist. But I don't think libertarian ideals compel the conclusion that, to the extent that the CRA prohibited private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, it violates libertarian principles.
Rand Paul Wins Primary!
- Thread starter Adam Weinberg
- Start date
No, I'm not saying you're racist. But I don't think libertarian ideals compel the conclusion that, to the extent that the CRA prohibited private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, it violates libertarian principles.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
He said it was never appropriate? Could you link me to that?
Not that it matters to me personally as I don't dwell in Kentucky... just curious.
Thanks
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
that was truly amusing... they should know better than to try that shit here.
No, he did not specifically say that. But it is a fair reading of the logical implications of what he said. Note, when I say "it seems that . . ." it means that, to me, it seems that . . . not that Rand Paul said that . . .
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Um... we are walking the same insane path of debt that they did. We are but a decade behind them. If we continue on the same insane path of raising our debt by a $1T per year... we will be there soon enough.
The one difference is we have the ability to devalue our currency. Being tied to the Euro, they do not.
That said, if we do so, we will lose the reserve currency status and thus be subject to hyper inflation if we devalue.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, I know... I just wanted to hear you say that you were a douche bag for creating that straw man. Because if you had even a vague notion of what libertarians actually stood for, you would not be repeating the same old tired 'democrats view of libertarians'.
Another thing, this is part of what I alluded to in the things that make me weary about the Paul's political actions. I don't find enough evidence to assume they are racist based on them having a similar position as me on anti-discrimination laws. But they have to know, as well as I do, that it can be easily and rather honestly misunderstood. You have to have an audience that is willing to understand the position and most don't have the attention span, time, nor care to do that. That makes me worry that the Paul's might be courting racist votes.
But, libertarians sometimes do feel inclined to come down off the fence, with their nose held, to vote for some asshole, even if he does seem a little smelly. We just don't do it as often.
But, libertarians sometimes do feel inclined to come down off the fence, with their nose held, to vote for some asshole, even if he does seem a little smelly. We just don't do it as often.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, I see now that you were wrong for another few posts before you admitted it. Good to see.
I have a vague notion of what libertarians stand for. You can sum it up in five words: "I got mine. Fuck you."
Come on, it's at least, "I got mine. You get yours." Libertarians are fairly consistent in fighting against government barriers and violations of rights of everyone. We just don't think you should get much help from government because it just becomes a tool to reward the ruling elite.
I sympathize with some facets of libertarianism such as opposition to some government barriers to entry in the market (by the by, what's Rand Paul's position on opthamology licensure laws?) but stuff like opposing the Americans with Disabilities Act is stupid.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I would guess he would be against the licensure laws.
As for ADA, I somewhat agree. It is stupid to make an issue of it because it's possible negative effects are not that great. I can tell you from personal experience (I ran for office mainly a paper candidacy) the press loves to make us seem bizarre by forcing us to speak on these issues and they disregard the fact that we don't see them as priorities. They did it to me. They were not interested in what I saw as issues of concern and completely disregarded my statements concerning that to focus on what they wanted to focus on.
That's crazy. Do you oppose all licensure laws? I mean, some are pretty effing stupid, but lots of them are good laws and are important.
Well, I can understand the frustration, but Senators have to vote on a whole host of issues and do not necessarily get to select what they will be asked to vote on. And if Rand Paul does not trust the government to interfere in private enterprise for purposes of telling businesses that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, it's hard to see him trusting the government to interfere with private business at all. And that matters.
With regard to the civil rights act, if some dude says they don't support it but they caveat it by saying it’s not a priority with them, it telegraphs to me information about their core values, and how they perceive the execution of public policy to be.
As an American who strongly believe in civil rights, and the authority of the federal government to enforce them, my judgment is that anyone who waffles on the CRA or doesn’t support the ADA is not going to appoint administrators and civil servants who are proactive and passionate regulators of civil rights laws.
Again, I’m not saying this pertains to you, so don’t take it personally, but my distinct impression that that many on the rightwing and libertarian fraction are unforthcoming and hesitant to state their views in public, or in polite company. And that somehow they feel compelled to self-censor or obfuscate their values when in the prescience of polite company. I don’t know why that is, whether its self-shame or embarrassment, or what. But, for example I’ve heard about ten billion rightwingers proclaim that the New Deal was highly evil and communist, and it should be abolished. But, when you actually ask them specifically which part of the New Deal reforms should be abolished – child labor laws, medicare, Banking regulations, social security, the abolition of prohibition, FDIC, and disability insurance – they are totally reticent in giving specific answers, and they really don’t seem to be able to go on public record saying they want those programs abolished.
I can’t recall any substantive liberal position I hold that I’m embarrassed or ashamed to state publicly, or in polite company. I’d say cough it up Rand Paul. Be proud of being a Libertarian-Tea Bag Party-whatever he is. There’s no shame in saying what you believe. I don’t think Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders are afraid to say anything they believe. Isn’t Rand running against the whole establishment, and typical-politician thing? Or, is he already acting like a typical politician?
Yes. The government should not be telling me who I must seek services from. I would not mind if they required some sort of government evaluation of the provider and forced them to disclose it. But if I want to have my eyes worked on by some immigrant ophthamologist who has not yet been allowed to join the protected domestics, or even someone that failed their evaluation, that is my choice.
Yeah, and they are sure to be voting on some bill repealing ADA or CRA, ohhh... abouuuut... never.
Believe what you want to believe on libertarian views concerning regulation of businesses, then. If you are not going to accept what I am telling you I (and just about all libertarians) believe then, what's the point. You apparently already know what we mean better than we do.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As I stated... I understand you comprehend what the DEMOCRATS think Libertarians stand for. No need to restate the fact.
That's stupid.
Well, just this session the Senate voted on the Lily Ledbetter Act concerning discrimination in the payment of wages. And the employment non-discrimination act passed the House recently. So, these issues come up more often that you might think.
Moreover, as I said, Paul's position on this simply highlights his view that government should play an extremely limited role in regulating private enterprise. Voters should know the limits, if any, of his libertarianism.
I was not intending to generalize about libertarians. I'm speaking about the positions of Rand Paul. Maybe we'll hear more from his so he can articulate what he thinks the proper role of government is with respect to regulation of private enterprise, like for example whether the government can tell private enterprise what it can and cannot do in drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or whether the government can tell businesses that they are prohibited from employing illegal aliens.
Wonderful argument. Do you support limits on who can braid my hair too? That's stupid.
And the ADA came up when?
Based on accurate generalizations of libertarians I can tell you that you are not likely to be correct in your characterization of Paul's views. He is not opposed to all government regulation of business.